No-Ad rule change revisited

Has the change to no-ad tennis been positive?

  • Yes. Overwhelming success. #1 reason for TV coverage and has helped fan support

  • Yes. It has been one of the factors to help move college tennis is a positive direction

  • Inconsequential/Negligible impact

  • No. It has mildly decreased the quality of play and hurts development overall

  • No. It has ruined college tennis. It's nothing but a crapshoot now with the gimmick rule change


Results are only viewable after voting.
#1
It has now been a few years since college tennis changed the format to no-ad and shortened doubles. Looking back over the time period, what has been the impact of it in your opinion?

A few years ago, seemingly out of nowhere, a narrative started that college tennis was in trouble or that it was very close to being in trouble. Several prominent coaches around the country started using borderline scare tactics that more college sports programs were going to be cut and therefore tennis needed to do something to attract more fans/revenue/attention to save college tennis from being eliminated. Out of this came the idea of switching to the no-ad shortened format, which was nearly unanimously believed to be the magic fix to attendance issues. It was argued that a no-ad format would engage fans more and lead to larger crowds at matches and that it would get college tennis on TV more often.

There were some people who were against the rule changes. They argued that it might decrease the quality of college tennis recruitment at the very top because college tennis would be playing with a format that they would not see in the pros. Some said that it would ruin the battle of a long deuce game and make matches more like crapshoots with multiple no-ad points that could go either way and be decided on things like net cords. There was also concern that it lessened the importance of doubles even more.

Now that we have seen it play out for a few seasons, what do you think it has done? College tennis has been getting more TV time in recent seasons, is that exclusively because of the no-ad format? There has been an increase in free-lance online coverage of college tennis recently, but that coverage is usually done by people who are tennis nuts anyway and would likely do it regardless of the ad rules. Has it led to any substantial increases in attendance around the country? Is there evidence that fans greatly prefer no-ad in the dual matches? Is there any truth to the potential negatives? Are the top players less prepared for the pros thanks to no-ad? Has it made matches more like crapshoots and less of a battle? Is that actually a good thing because it leads to more upsets?

A lot of talking points here but basically I am wondering how the college tennis community feels about the no-ad format a few years in.
 
#2
What I’ve noticed is that fans stick around after the doubles due to the elimination of the 10 minute break and no warmup and immediate start for singles.

I would prefer the dubs be an 8 game pro set. Maybe with a TB at 7 all.

Not sure about overall attendance increase or not. Seems better to me, but my exposure is mostly limited to one team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#4
Personally I think no-ad is the future for pro tennis as well.

This is a pretty hot take but I think no ad points are more exciting. Tennis purists will disagree saying it's too easy to get lucky on a no ad point and get a lucky break, but to me that's ok.
I have noticed that in college tennis, a lot of games go to the no-ad 40-40 point. Like quite a few more than the amount that used to go to deuce. I think it is a mental thing. In the no-ad format being down 0-40 or 15-40 is not as insurmountable of a hole to dig out of. And the player who is leading 40-30 has more pressure in no-ad because they are still only 2 points away from losing the game while deuce acts like a cushion of sorts.
 
#6
I bet the amount of true upsets using no-ad versus traditional ad scoring is nominal. For example, in pro dubs using the 10 pt MTB, the higher ranked team wins at about the same rate as with traditional scoring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Rattler

Professional
#7
I hated using that stupid paddle, and announcing to the feeble crowd (who already knew what was going on) that the next point was a deciding point...now at the NCAA finals it was a different story, at least on the crowd size.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#8
I bet the amount of true upsets using no-ad versus traditional ad scoring is nominal. For example, in pro dubs using the 10 pt MTB, the higher ranked team wins at about the same rate as with traditional scoring.
@ADS - this would be a good application for your modeling of deuce versus no-ad scoring!
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#9
I bet the amount of true upsets using no-ad versus traditional ad scoring is nominal. For example, in pro dubs using the 10 pt MTB, the higher ranked team wins at about the same rate as with traditional scoring.
This is interesting, do you have any stats for this?
 
#10
This is interesting, do you have any stats for this?
I saw stats on the doubles ATP no-ad and the MTB years ago. That’s why I stated that. Not sure I can find it but will dig around. Maybe UTR has stats on no-ad from college match play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#11
I saw stats on the doubles ATP no-ad and the MTB years ago. That’s why I stated that. Not sure I can find it but will dig around. Maybe UTR has stats on no-ad from college match play.
Yeah, because in theory, the fewer points played the more chance of an upset.

You can easily look at this in the stats of the high-ranking ATP pros. % tiebreaks won versus % matches won...

No-ad reduces the total number of points played in a match, and therefore favors the underdog versus traditional scoring. How much it favors the underdog is debatable...
 
#12
Yeah, because in theory, the fewer points played the more chance of an upset.

You can easily look at this in the stats of the high-ranking ATP pros. % tiebreaks won versus % matches won...

No-ad reduces the total number of points played in a match, and therefore favors the underdog versus traditional scoring. How much it favors the underdog is debatable...
I agree that no-ad favors the underdog, and like playing in heavy wind levels the playing field some. Can’t be a huge difference though. Comparative stats would be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#15
It has now been a few years since college tennis changed the format to no-ad and shortened doubles. Looking back over the time period, what has been the impact of it in your opinion?

A few years ago, seemingly out of nowhere, a narrative started that college tennis was in trouble or that it was very close to being in trouble. Several prominent coaches around the country started using borderline scare tactics that more college sports programs were going to be cut and therefore tennis needed to do something to attract more fans/revenue/attention to save college tennis from being eliminated. Out of this came the idea of switching to the no-ad shortened format, which was nearly unanimously believed to be the magic fix to attendance issues. It was argued that a no-ad format would engage fans more and lead to larger crowds at matches and that it would get college tennis on TV more often.

There were some people who were against the rule changes. They argued that it might decrease the quality of college tennis recruitment at the very top because college tennis would be playing with a format that they would not see in the pros. Some said that it would ruin the battle of a long deuce game and make matches more like crapshoots with multiple no-ad points that could go either way and be decided on things like net cords. There was also concern that it lessened the importance of doubles even more.

Now that we have seen it play out for a few seasons, what do you think it has done? College tennis has been getting more TV time in recent seasons, is that exclusively because of the no-ad format? There has been an increase in free-lance online coverage of college tennis recently, but that coverage is usually done by people who are tennis nuts anyway and would likely do it regardless of the ad rules. Has it led to any substantial increases in attendance around the country? Is there evidence that fans greatly prefer no-ad in the dual matches? Is there any truth to the potential negatives? Are the top players less prepared for the pros thanks to no-ad? Has it made matches more like crapshoots and less of a battle? Is that actually a good thing because it leads to more upsets?

A lot of talking points here but basically I am wondering how the college tennis community feels about the no-ad format a few years in.
Doubles is now a crap shoot. I voted ruined because of the wording at the end. I don't think ruined but I do think negatively impacted. With no ad, that deuce point is a joke. It's not like the 8 game proset really goes that much faster without ads. It's still only 8 games and instead of taking like an hour it now takes like 45 minutes. That's not much time savings over the course of a 4-5 hour dual match. I've seen really bad doubles teams get one or two lucky breaks in a no-ad pro set and win.
 
#16
Doubles is now a crap shoot. I voted ruined because of the wording at the end. I don't think ruined but I do think negatively impacted. With no ad, that deuce point is a joke. It's not like the 8 game proset really goes that much faster without ads. It's still only 8 games and instead of taking like an hour it now takes like 45 minutes. That's not much time savings over the course of a 4-5 hour dual match. I've seen really bad doubles teams get one or two lucky breaks in a no-ad pro set and win.
Totally agree. The current 6 game format is too short. 2 more games gives the opportunity for 2 full service rotations that make more sense. Some coaches would argue 6 games creates more excitement. I seem to notice more doubles specialists now, guys who serve and return big and can volley, again my observation is limited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#17
I bet the amount of true upsets using no-ad versus traditional ad scoring is nominal. For example, in pro dubs using the 10 pt MTB, the higher ranked team wins at about the same rate as with traditional scoring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It does seem like upsets have been on the rise in recent years though. Some of the results last year were truly shocking like Miami taking Wake Forest down to the absolute wire. That is probably a mix of no-ad scoring and an overall increase in parity with more talent at more schools now.
 
#19
What I've heard: players can play more aggressive at Future Qs with the deuce point and ads vs in college where lines are called so tight. On the other hand, shorter no ad college play may not prepare players for long grinding 3 set Future matches with multiple deuces in almost every game. Now Quali matches will be 3rd set tiebreak so it will only be the MD matches that may test the endurance of college players with long points and long games.

Much bigger than the impact of no-ad is just the changes in tour for 2019. Almost all the top college players played events where they did not even make it out of Future Qualifiers-even guys who went on later to go deep in Future and Challenger MDs. Roy Smith, who currently has the highest 2019 ATP ranking of US collegians after 2nd place finish at Houston Challenger lost in Qualis of two 15Ks this past summer. Guys may have less chances and must be ready to play hard every event now. I think there will be a lot more players from Asia, Africa, and South America deciding to play college tennis-may not be D1-could be D2/NAIA as they wont be able to make in roads on the tour at home. Most of the Futures in those regions were $15Ks and with the current changes, no ATP points can be earned in 2019 unless a player reaches final of $25K.

In Futures, the more experienced higher ranked player usually wins-probably more often than college players win over lower ranked opponents; at pro events the higher ranked player grinds opponent down. I think it is harder for players to adjust to different surfaces than it is to different scoring. How else can you explain OSU losing to UGA last spring? OSU had only played indoors and lost that outside match. Also bigger than the impact of no-ad on playing pro is the lack of clay play in college. About half of Futures are on clay. Guys have to know how to work a point-not just get by with a big serve on fast indoor courts,...
 
Last edited:
#20
I think college tennis being on TV more has more to do with all these conferences having their own networks and needing filler. I know BTN does not show the championships live, it's just packaged into the time slot it's given. So how does the length of a doubles match impact that?
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#21
What I've heard: players can play more aggressive at Future Qs with the deuce point and ads vs in college where lines are called so tight. On the other hand, shorter no ad college play may not prepare players for long grinding 3 set Future matches with multiple deuces in almost every game. Now Quali matches will be 3rd set tiebreak so it will only be the MD matches that may test the endurance of college players with long points and long games.

Much bigger than the impact of no-ad is just the changes in tour for 2019. Almost all the top college players played events where they did not even make it out of Future Qualifiers-even guys who went on later to go deep in Future and Challenger MDs. Roy Smith, who currently has the highest 2019 ATP ranking of US collegians after 2nd place finish at Houston Challenger lost in Qualis of two 15Ks this past summer. Guys may have less chances and must be ready to play hard every event now. I think there will be a lot more players from Asia, Africa, and South America deciding to play college tennis-may not be D1-could be D2/NAIA as they wont be able to make in roads on the tour at home. Most of the Futures in those regions were $15Ks and with the current changes, no ATP points can be earned in 2019 unless a player reaches final of $25K.

In Futures, the more experienced higher ranked player usually wins-probably more often than college players win over lower ranked opponents; at pro events the higher ranked player grinds opponent down. I think it is harder for players to adjust to different surfaces than it is to different scoring. How else can you explain OSU losing to UGA last spring? OSU had only played indoors and lost that outside match. Also bigger than the impact of no-ad on playing pro is the lack of clay play in college. About half of Futures are on clay. Guys have to know how to work a point-not just get by with a big serve on fast indoor courts,...
I would say college tennis doesn't prep the players for ATP.

If it did, wouldn't we see more top players who had played college?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of Isner, Johnson, and McDonald from the last 10-15 years of college players. Any others I'm missing?
 
#22
I would say college tennis doesn't prep the players for ATP.

If it did, wouldn't we see more top players who had played college?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of Isner, Johnson, and McDonald from the last 10-15 years of college players. Any others I'm missing?
Kevin Andersen is one who is doing quite well. Just looking at the top 100 at least 9 of them have attended college before joining the pro ranks. I think college tennis is a great alternate route to the pro tour, but a lot of players skip it if they are ready for the pro tour already.
 
#23
I would say college tennis doesn't prep the players for ATP.

If it did, wouldn't we see more top players who had played college?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of Isner, Johnson, and McDonald from the last 10-15 years of college players. Any others I'm missing?
Norrie at #91 is a recent pro after 3 years at TCU. Klahn from Stanford is 76; Sandgren (Tenn) is 61. College is a great option for talented world ranked juniors who need a little more time to develop and/or for those who have limited financial resources. If college can get them WCs to Challengers or even 250s and develop players so they can go deep, maybe it will take the best college players only 12-18 months to break top 100. Consider Stefan Kozlov. He was part of the big group of talented US players who graduated in 2015 I think. Many of those guys are now top 100-Fritz, Tiafoe, Opelka. However Kozlov is now 408; he was 115 in 2/17. He may have benefited from college first; his younger brother is a freshman playing at LSU.
 
#25
@ADS - this would be a good application for your modeling of deuce versus no-ad scoring!
This may better belong on the “It Isn’t All Mental” thread, but I did send your comments to Sven. Here is his reply (he liked your article, as did I):

“Very interesting. It is a good reminder that statistical modeling has to be done very carefully before conclusions can be made. The no-ad simulator is a good idea. Given the concept of games, the percentage of won matches should still be higher than the point winning percentage, but it should be less extreme than we have seen for games with ad.”

I’m pretty sure he will come up with something but right now his life is very busy

Thanks for your interest!
 
#26
Norrie at #91 is a recent pro after 3 years at TCU. Klahn from Stanford is 76; Sandgren (Tenn) is 61. College is a great option for talented world ranked juniors who need a little more time to develop and/or for those who have limited financial resources. If college can get them WCs to Challengers or even 250s and develop players so they can go deep, maybe it will take the best college players only 12-18 months to break top 100. Consider Stefan Kozlov. He was part of the big group of talented US players who graduated in 2015 I think. Many of those guys are now top 100-Fritz, Tiafoe, Opelka. However Kozlov is now 408; he was 115 in 2/17. He may have benefited from college first; his younger brother is a freshman playing at LSU.
Realizing the focus here is singles, got to mention (again LOL) Joe Salisbury Memphis #30 ATP doubles. Regarding S. Kozlov, his 2018 still remains a mystery to me. Other than random speculation, I have not heard what the source of his struggles were. Given his 2016 and 17 results I see no reason he could not rise back up again. I like his father and him and hope he has a better 2019.
 
#28
I doubt that. In the pros, typically someone has enough of a weapon to push a point towards conclusion. I wouldn't want to see the tours (guys, anyway), go no-ad.

In college tennis, there are a boatload of players who are willing to stand at the baseline all day, hit quality groundsrtokes, but not know how to push the point forward.

For those players, and so, for college tennis in general, no-ad is fine by me.

If you need convincing, I would be happy to mail you a pile of my chair-umpire scorecards that confirms this.
 
#29
I really think they should have one or the other. Either keep the No ad rule and throw out the 3rd set super tiebreaker or abandon the no ad rule and keep the 3rd set super tiebreaker
 

Nacho

Professional
#33
It has now been a few years since college tennis changed the format to no-ad and shortened doubles. Looking back over the time period, what has been the impact of it in your opinion?

A few years ago, seemingly out of nowhere, a narrative started that college tennis was in trouble or that it was very close to being in trouble. Several prominent coaches around the country started using borderline scare tactics that more college sports programs were going to be cut and therefore tennis needed to do something to attract more fans/revenue/attention to save college tennis from being eliminated. Out of this came the idea of switching to the no-ad shortened format, which was nearly unanimously believed to be the magic fix to attendance issues. It was argued that a no-ad format would engage fans more and lead to larger crowds at matches and that it would get college tennis on TV more often.

There were some people who were against the rule changes. They argued that it might decrease the quality of college tennis recruitment at the very top because college tennis would be playing with a format that they would not see in the pros. Some said that it would ruin the battle of a long deuce game and make matches more like crapshoots with multiple no-ad points that could go either way and be decided on things like net cords. There was also concern that it lessened the importance of doubles even more.

Now that we have seen it play out for a few seasons, what do you think it has done? College tennis has been getting more TV time in recent seasons, is that exclusively because of the no-ad format? There has been an increase in free-lance online coverage of college tennis recently, but that coverage is usually done by people who are tennis nuts anyway and would likely do it regardless of the ad rules. Has it led to any substantial increases in attendance around the country? Is there evidence that fans greatly prefer no-ad in the dual matches? Is there any truth to the potential negatives? Are the top players less prepared for the pros thanks to no-ad? Has it made matches more like crapshoots and less of a battle? Is that actually a good thing because it leads to more upsets?

A lot of talking points here but basically I am wondering how the college tennis community feels about the no-ad format a few years in.
You knew I would chime in, but I will try and keep it impartial and quick (for now):

Pro's
-Created a standard for match times, thus creating an opportunity for marketing to a TV audience
-Cut down on lengthy match times, I believe by about half an hour but I need to double check that

Neither Pro or Con
-Creates Parity by giving lessor players, and thus, lessor teams opportunities to win when they may have lost. I for one do not like this, but some have argued parity is good
-No ad point system eliminates second chance, and puts too much emphasis on one point rather then point construction. Again, some people may like the excitement of this, but I have never thought it was a good development tool for players wanting to play in the pros, and feel the drama of multiple deuces is more heart pounding
-Continues to cater to a more advanced player, and the US Jr system just isn't built to come into a point system like this so the International presence has increased (by about 5% since the inception). Coaches are limited on development, and look for the more seasoned player, so the B player pro's from Europe see this as a second chance if they fail initially in futures tournaments. Again, some don't care, they like good tennis; but I think this hurts American Jr tennis participation and attendance overall and this number will continue to go up until there are changes in how Jr tennis is played

Con's
-Promotes grinding, defensive tennis...And isn't good as a development tool for Pro-tennis. This impacts potential players that might have played in college but opt to go to pros instead
-No evidence that it has improved attendance. Many schools can't accurately track this, but certainly and the major college events there aren't any incremental improvements to show so far. May be early still? But I also don't feel TV audience has taken to it and it has a weak footprint on cable TV, something that was promised would immediately improve, so not a reason to play it


What I would want:
-I am pro-ad...I hate playing No-Ad, and see no need to have our college players play it
-I would also be for having the doubles go to an 8 game pro-set
-No more 10pt Breakers for the third in doubles at the tournaments
-Create a broader tournament schedule, and televise and market those events rather then the Team events
 

Raindogs

Hall of Fame
#36
An 8-game no-ad pro set will hopefully be the norn in college and ATP events within 5 years.

Tennis is keeping folks away from their digital devices for far too long and this needs to be remedied.
 
#37
No matter where you fall on this.... its all about follow the money.
And since most if not all college tennis doesn't make any money, than they are trying to GET to some $ through advertising and televising matches etc..
I personally don't think they give a serious consideration of what is best for USA tennis or junior development.
The industry in only interested in marketing themselves and the sport! GO USA, WE'RE #1 (WITH 90% INTERNATIONAL TEAM)!

Maybe its just me, but I have NEVER seen a player really like to play no-ad.... unless its about to get dark or about to rain!
 
#38
It does break the concept of the scoring system of "win by two", on both sides.

But I don't mind it and have seen some who don't for indoor play especially, since we have limited time there I would rather have more overall play than one of those never-ending games.

I also don't mind it for spectator purposes, it is more exciting.

I don't think it is so bad altogether and think there is a vocal minority that is biased towards conservatism in the sport. "Purists". It changes the game but not necessarily for the worst, just different, and people, like mice, don't like it when someone moves their cheese. It changes the strategies (the receiving team in doubles can have their stronger player take the serve).
 
#39
It does break the concept of the scoring system of "win by two", on both sides.

But I don't mind it and have seen some who don't for indoor play especially, since we have limited time there I would rather have more overall play than one of those never-ending games.

I also don't mind it for spectator purposes, it is more exciting.

I don't think it is so bad altogether and think there is a vocal minority that is biased towards conservatism in the sport. "Purists". It changes the game but not necessarily for the worst, just different, and people, like mice, don't like it when someone moves their cheese. It changes the strategies (the receiving team in doubles can have their stronger player take the serve).
I agree. I kind of like it. It reminds me of when volleyball switched to rally scoring from side-out scoring. Purists flipped out, saying it changed the entire sport, including the key term "side-out." At the same time they also allowed "lets" to be played. Both changes have been overwhelming successes. I think the following changes, introduced in this order, would be very positive for tennis:

1. No lets. Just like when the ball hits the net and goes over during a point, a ball that hits the net and goes over during the serve should be "live." Why should it be any different during the serve? This will speed up play slightly and it will make the rule more uniform. There also won't be any arguing over if a let occurred in settings where electronic monitoring is not used.
2. No ad scoring. It makes match times much more predictable, which helps with scheduling and televising.
3. All sets should be to 6 games, with a tiebreak at 6 all (college doubles, singles, Hopman, etc). This will make tennis more uniform, understandable, and accessible.
 
#40
Wimbledon now has a tie-breaker in the final set at 12-12. It's just a matter of time before they go no-ad.
And that would be the way to hell...
For a lot of people, is the most interesting thing about tennis, when there are long games with alternating advantages and deuces. If the ad was ever canceled, it would damage the attractiveness of tennis!
 
#41
And that would be the way to hell...
For a lot of people, is the most interesting thing about tennis, when there are long games with alternating advantages and deuces. If the ad was ever canceled, it would damage the attractiveness of tennis!
I disagree. Certainly it would eliminate long games, but it would add this incredibly tense and dramatic point, frequently, which in my opinion would increase the appeal of tennis.
 
#42
I disagree. Certainly it would eliminate long games, but it would add this incredibly tense and dramatic point, frequently, which in my opinion would increase the appeal of tennis.
In the doubles was introduced no-ad on the usual tournaments and helped make the doubles more attractive? No. This should warn us of trying to introduce no-ad into a professional singles. Many doubles players dislikes no-ad and several players said their negative opinion:
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...-soares-doubles-tennis-australian-open/63657/
 
#43
In the doubles was introduced no-ad on the usual tournaments and helped make the doubles more attractive? No. This should warn us of trying to introduce no-ad into a professional singles. Many doubles players dislikes no-ad and several players said their negative opinion:
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...-soares-doubles-tennis-australian-open/63657/
I think it's hard to say if it made doubles more or less attractive. In my opinion, it didn't really change the appeal of doubles one way or another, but from the link you provided the ATP CEO seems to think the change was beneficial.
 

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
#44
I think it's hard to say if it made doubles more or less attractive. In my opinion, it didn't really change the appeal of doubles one way or another, but from the link you provided the ATP CEO seems to think the change was beneficial.
They only show doubles when nothing else is available, much to my disappointment. So, shortening doubles matches did not help them get on TV. It just helps the tournament free up courts faster for singles.
 

JW10S

Hall of Fame
#45
I think it's hard to say if it made doubles more or less attractive. In my opinion, it didn't really change the appeal of doubles one way or another, but from the link you provided the ATP CEO seems to think the change was beneficial.
Prior to the scoring change in pro tennis I remember speaking to some tournament directors of some 250 and 500 tournaments and they hated having to put on a doubles event at all. Often the evening session would feature a singles and a doubles match and the directors lamented that most of the spectators would leave after the singles match, or just watch a part of the doubles. That meant less concession sales and less income. The directors said they'd rather not have doubles at all since they were forced to provide a certain % of the overall prize money to the doubles. They'd rather put that money into the singles draw to be able to attract higher ranked and more well known singles players since many fans cannot name many doubles specialists beyond the Bryan Bros. The change was meant to encourage more singles players, who are more well known and bring in the spectators, to play more doubles. That has worked only to a small extent. In some tournaments, like Indian Wells, some of the top singles players will often also play doubles. I remember about 5 or so years ago 9 of the top 10 ranked singles players entered the doubles event as well at Indian Wells. Though it has not been as consistent in tournaments across the board more singles players do play doubles now as compared to before the change so it has had SOME impact--just not a big one. The shortened format does mean that the average doubles match takes somewhere between an hour and an hour and 15 mins or so to play. Which means a few more well known singles players will play doubles now since it is less taxing than before. It also means that the tournament director can schedule matches around the doubles a little more easily which makes the tournament run more efficiently. I honestly believe that without the change there now would be no doubles draws in any tournaments outside the Grand Slams, Davis/Fed Cups and the Olympics. As far as college tennis goes I think the no-ad format it is working since college tennis is still going.
 
Last edited:
#47
Prior to the scoring change in pro tennis I remember speaking to some tournament directors of some 250 and 500 tournaments and they hated having to put on a doubles event at all. Often the evening session would feature a singles and a doubles match and the directors lamented that most of the spectators would leave after the singles match, or just watch a part of the doubles. That meant less concession sales and less income. The directors said they'd rather not have doubles at all since they were forced to provide a certain % of the overall prize money to the doubles. They'd rather put that money into the singles draw to be able to attract higher ranked and more well known singles players since many fans cannot name many doubles specialists beyond the Bryan Bros. The change was meant to encourage more singles players, who are more well known and bring in the spectators, to play more doubles. That has worked only to a small extent. In some tournaments, like Indian Wells, some of the top singles players will often also play doubles. I remember about 5 or so years ago 9 of the top 10 ranked singles players entered the doubles event as well at Indian Wells. Though it has not been as consistent in tournaments across the board more singles players do play doubles now as compared to before the change so it has had SOME impact--just not a big one. The shortened format does mean that the average doubles match takes somewhere between an hour and an hour and 15 mins or so to play. Which means a few more well known singles players will play doubles now since it is less taxing than before. It also means that the tournament director can schedule matches around the doubles a little more easily which makes the tournament run more efficiently. I honestly believe that without the change there now would be no doubles draws in any tournaments outside the Grand Slams, Davis/Fed Cups and the Olympics. As far as college tennis goes I think the no-ad format it is working since college tennis is still going.
So then obvious question is should the ATP get rid of doubles ?? but then Doubles is what most recreational players play, especially so among older guys.

Atp needs to somehow bring back the old days when top players played doubles. Like John Macenroe played doubles all the time and used it as practice since he hated practice sessions. and many other top players played doubles most of the time during those times. So in my mind, top players should be forced to play certain amount of doubles during the year. They way They might get injured ??????????? Who cares ? So what. Injury is part of the game, you keep playing.
 
#48
And that would be the way to hell...
For a lot of people, is the most interesting thing about tennis, when there are long games with alternating advantages and deuces. If the ad was ever canceled, it would damage the attractiveness of tennis!
And people like myself find long deuce games awful both to play and watch on tv.

I hope all tennis goes to no-ad. No ad points are exciting to watch and play both.

Years ago I'm sure there were a million purists upset about the invention of the tiebreaker. Look at how successful it has been though....people love watching them and it has been good for the game. It would be the same if tennis went no ad.
 
#49
I think it's hard to say if it made doubles more or less attractive. In my opinion, it didn't really change the appeal of doubles one way or another, but from the link you provided the ATP CEO seems to think the change was beneficial.
So the opinion of the functionary is more important to you than the active tennis player's opinion?

And people like myself find long deuce games awful both to play and watch on tv.

I hope all tennis goes to no-ad. No ad points are exciting to watch and play both.

Years ago I'm sure there were a million purists upset about the invention of the tiebreaker. Look at how successful it has been though....people love watching them and it has been good for the game. It would be the same if tennis went no ad.
If you want to see a shorter matches, request the acceleration of the surfaces, not the change of the score rules. Profit of games without advantages (after deuce) is a matter of happiness, not skill and patience.
 
Last edited:
#50
If you want to see a shorter matches, request the acceleration of the surfaces, not the change of the score rules. Profit of games without advantages (after deuce) is a matter of happiness, not skill and patience.
You obviously didn't even read my post. I dont care that much about the length of matches.

I enjoy the pressure moments in tennis, both to play and watch. No ad gets to those important moments more quickly without the monotony of multiple deuces.

I one watched a match between Agassi and Costa that had a single game last about 30 minutes because of like 12 deuces. It was boring as hell and the game could have been decided with a single exciting point.

Just like the invention of the TB, when tennis inevitably goes to no-ad all the naysayers like you will get on board and end up liking it. Guaranteed.
 
Top