No ad scoring system is very flawed

#1
I play group league matches and because the matches last only 50 minutes we use no ad scoring to speed up the sets. I never liked it and yesterday it became apparent why. The rule of thumb in tennis scoring is to always win by two, in games, sets, and tie-breaks but with no ad everything changes. The margins are so small that you pay badly for a few mistakes and it shows on the scoreboard.

Yesterday I played a match and was down 2-5 before I had to retire due to injury. Out of those 7 games 5 were decided by no ad points and my opponent won 4 of them. I was on the offense on at least three of them but one offensive forehand off a short ball was stopped by the net cord, one smash an inch too long and a wide service return off a weak 2nd serve handed my opponent three of them and he did nothing to deserve it.

If it were the regular scoring system he of course would have had to win one more point to seal the game and that makes a huge difference. Now it felt more like a lottery and I know the score could have easily been 3-4 or 4-3 in my favor. Now I was left wondering what did go wrong as I did not play bad at all but still was down 2-5 in the score.
 
Last edited:

schmke

Hall of Fame
#2
Yesterday I played a match and was down 2-5 before I had to retire due to injury. Out of those 7 games 5 were decided by no ad points and my opponent won 4 of them. I was on the offense on at least three of them but one offensive forehand off a short ball was stopped by the net cord, one smash an inch too long and a wide service return off a weak 2nd serve handed my opponent three of them and he did nothing to deserve it.
Ummm, yes he did deserve it. He didn't miss shots, you did.

If it were the regular scoring system he of course would have had to win one more point to seal the game and that makes a huge difference. Now it felt more like a lottery and I know the score could have asily been 3-4 or 4-3 in my favor. Now I was left wondering what did go wrong when I was down 2-5 and I played some good tennis overall. That is why the no ad scoring system is very flawed.
You are correct that it changes the importance of the no-ad point and perhaps rewards someone who is more consistent vs someone who either wins or loses a point, but at the same time, if you lost 4 of 5 "big" points, you weren't going to be winning any of those deuce games anyway as the ad-in/out "big" points would have likely been lost with a similar ratio and while perhaps you'd get a few back to deuce, unless you actually win more "big" points, no-ad or not isn't going to make a difference.
 
#3
Ummm, yes he did deserve it. He didn't miss shots, you did.
I think you miss my point here about the small margins of the no ad scoring. I pointed out that I was on the offense in those points. I missed an offensive forehand, an offensive smash and an offensive forehand return off a weak 2nd serve. I guess the correct approach is to don't try too much with no ad and just play safe?

I have played matches where I won but did not feel any satisfaction because I know I just got lucky on some no ad points. Real tennis is about persistance and the fact that you always have to win two more points than your opponent to win a game.

Both players should not have game point, set point or match point at the same time as is the case with no ad. That goes against the nature of tennis.
 
Last edited:
#4
You have up to 40-40 to win by two points still. no-ad just accelerates the time to get to the "big" point (ad in, ad out) and increases it's importance as it's now win or lose for both players.

You can argue all you want about it being "unfair" but I would argue it's perfectly fair as now both players are in a do or die situation.

I've played a league set where I lost 6-0 and all 6 games were deuce in a no-ad scoring system. I lost all 6 no ad points. Instead of railing at the system I accepted the fact that my opponent dug deeper than I did and made the big shots in the big moments.
Maybe no ad made it look more lopsided, but it was still good on him for winning the important points.
 
#5
Both players should not have game point, set point or match point at the same time as is the case with no ad. That goes against the nature of tennis.
I think it's the height of hubris to believe you know what the "nature of tennis" is.

I would argue that 100 sq inch graphite rackets and polyester strings go more against the nature of tennis than no ad scoring does. But I'm not Walter Wingfield so i'm not going to make any strong arguments one way or the other.
 
#6
You have up to 40-40 to win by two points still. no-ad just accelerates the time to get to the "big" point (ad in, ad out) and increases it's importance as it's now win or lose for both players.

You can argue all you want about it being "unfair" but I would argue it's perfectly fair as now both players are in a do or die situation.

I've played a league set where I lost 6-0 and all 6 games were deuce in a no-ad scoring system. I lost all 6 no ad points. Instead of railing at the system I accepted the fact that my opponent dug deeper than I did and made the big shots in the big moments.
Maybe no ad made it look more lopsided, but it was still good on him for winning the important points.
Don't you think it feels wrong to lose 0-6 where your opponent won 6 points more in total compared to with regular scoring he would had to win at least 12 more points. Huge difference.
 
#7
I think it's the height of hubris to believe you know what the "nature of tennis" is.

I would argue that 100 sq inch graphite rackets and polyester strings go more against the nature of tennis than no ad scoring does. But I'm not Walter Wingfield so i'm not going to make any strong arguments one way or the other.
I meant the nature of tennis rules. No ad is a very late addition to the game that changes the nature of tennis scoring completely.
 
#8
First - You had to retire due to injury at 2-5 and you wanted the games to last longer ?!?!

Second - I believe numbers have been run on no-ad vs regular scoring and show that there is almost no difference in expected outcome

While I personally prefer regular ad scoring , no-ad really doesn't change anything.

lack of no-ad would not have turned the score from 2-5 to 5-2 ... this is sour grapes pure and simple.
 
#9
I meant the nature of tennis rules. No ad is a very late addition to the game that changes the nature of tennis scoring completely.
No ad has been around as long as I've played tennis and I'm 53. Maybe it's being used more these days as it's a pretty common scoring adjustment for time constrained matches

Don't you think it feels wrong to lose 0-6 where your opponent won 6 points more in total compared to with regular scoring he would had to win at least 12 more points. Huge difference.
No likely we would have ended up with a score of 4-2 as time ran out and it would have been even more unsatisfying.
But I had 6 big points and failed on all 6. That's on me. I personally like the idea that the pressure is equal on both players in a no ad game. If i want to take that pressure off, win the game at 40-15 or 40-30.
 
#10
No ad has been around as long as I've played tennis and I'm 53. Maybe it's being used more these days as it's a pretty common scoring adjustment for time constrained matches



No likely we would have ended up with a score of 4-2 as time ran out and it would have been even more unsatisfying.
But I had 6 big points and failed on all 6. That's on me. I personally like the idea that the pressure is equal on both players in a no ad game. If i want to take that pressure off, win the game at 40-15 or 40-30.
I did not know that it had been around for that long but I still don't like it. It takes away too much of the dynamic in a tennis match.
 
#11
To me, No-ad is better than short sets (start at 2-2 or similar) or counting only games (no sets). Only second serves is terrible, but third set as a tiebreak to 10 is fine by me. There might be other ways to try shorten matches, but those are the ones I've experienced.

What gets on my nerve for no reason is that on TV when they show doubles, they say 15-40 equals two break points...! Hey, come on, it's 3 break points, count them, you fool commentator.
 
#12
First - You had to retire due to injury at 2-5 and you wanted the games to last longer ?!?!
abaout
Second - I believe numbers have been run on no-ad vs regular scoring and show that there is almost no difference in expected outcome

While I personally prefer regular ad scoring , no-ad really doesn't change anything.

lack of no-ad would not have turned the score from 2-5 to 5-2 ... this is sour grapes pure and simple.
The injury was legit and occured out of nowhere at 2-5, strained calf muscle. I only used my last match to make an example, that when 5 out of 7 games are decided by no ad it does in my opinion have a big effect on the overall score. I have had better luck with no ad points before and won a few matches I really shouldn't have won so it goes the other way around too.
 
#13
I tend to play up for big points, and conversely down for less important points, so I prefer no-ad scoring.

The thing to take away from all of this is probably to realize that on an important point, you are currently failing. Figure out how to win the big points and you won't be whining about no-ad. (just as I am trying to play smarter on less important points)

And it is not luck: it is grit, smart decisions and better play. Unless you lost all those sudden-death points on net cord winners or crazy framed drop shots.
 
#14
I tend to play up for big points, and conversely down for less important points, so I prefer no-ad scoring.

The thing to take away from all of this is probably to realize that on an important point, you are currently failing. Figure out how to win the big points and you won't be whining about no-ad. (just as I am trying to play smarter on less important points)

And it is not luck: it is grit, smart decisions and better play. Unless you lost all those sudden-death points on net cord winners or crazy framed drop shots.
I just tried to pinpoint the small margins of no ad, not whining about it. I didn't even finish the set and it was only one service break so I still could have won it. The thread was only meant to discuss no ad scoring, I don't know why there's such a negative attidude towards me.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#15
I think you miss my point here about the small margins of the no ad scoring. I pointed out that I was on the offense in those points. I missed an offensive forehand, an offensive smash and an offensive forehand return. I guess the correct approach is to don't try too much with no ad and just play safe?
The goal is to not be offensive, it is to win the point. If being offensive (perhaps "too" offensive is the better way to look at it) causes you to miss shots, then yes, the correct approach is to not try too much and play safer.

Like @Dartagnan64 said, you had six points to win by 2 and you didn't, so in "normal" points you were 50%. If you were 50% on "big" points, you'd win half the no-ad points but you didn't in this case, perhaps because your approach on these points was to be more aggressive than on the "normal" points and that led to the narrow misses. If that is the case, yes, dial it back slightly. You don't have to win a point with a winner, it is ok if you win points when your opponent succumbs and makes the error.
 
#16
I like no add scoring. We started doing this when we had an odd number of guys playing so we used no add to speed it up so the next guy could get in and play. I like the extra pressure it adds so when I play a tournament or something I am used to the pressure. The only thing no add does is maybe give the server a tad more advantage but not much. I am always trying to figure out which side is the weaker side so I can receive on that side to help reduce that advantage
 
#17
I wish I could get that through my thick skull sometimes

You don't have to win a point with a winner, it is ok if you win points when your opponent succumbs and makes the error.[/QUOTE]
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#18
I just tried to pinpoint the small margins of no ad, not whining about it. I didn't even finish the set and it was only one service break so I still could have won it. The thread was only meant to discuss no ad scoring, I don't know why there's such a negative attidude towards me.
My only gripe was this comment you made:
... he did nothing to deserve it ...
It is perfectly valid to like/dislike no-ad scoring or discuss whether different playing styles are better for it or discuss the best way to approach the points, but to say an opponent didn't deserve to win the points when they hit the ball in the court and you didn't is just silly.
 
#19
My only gripe was this comment you made:

It is perfectly valid to like/dislike no-ad scoring or discuss whether different playing styles are better for it or discuss the best way to approach the points, but to say an opponent didn't deserve to win the points when they hit the ball in the court and you didn't is just silly.
Maybe so but if my opponent miss an easy put away or overhead after dominating a point I don't think I deserved to win it just because I kept the ball in play. On those occations when it is obvious that my opponent should have won the point I always aknowledge that and say something like "you had me there" or "that was your point".
 
#20
Maybe so but if my opponent miss an easy put away or overhead after dominating a point I don't think I deserved to win it just because I kept the ball in play. On those occations when it is obvious that my opponent should have won the point I always aknowledge that and say something like "you had me there" or "that was your point".
That attitude will serve you poorly in years to come. Tennis is a game of getting the ball back in play one more time than your opponent. Not a game of getting it past your opponent. It's fun when it happens but more points are won because of UE's than Winners.

If your opponent "should" have won the point, they would have won the point. If they screwed up, you absolutely deserve the point because you didn't screw up first.
 
#21
That attitude will serve you poorly in years to come. Tennis is a game of getting the ball back in play one more time than your opponent. Not a game of getting it past your opponent. It's fun when it happens but more points are won because of UE's than Winners.

If your opponent "should" have won the point, they would have won the point. If they screwed up, you absolutely deserve the point because you didn't screw up first.
It is obvious we have different views on tennis and that is fine!
 
#22
I hate no ads. But I really hate the 3rd set 10 point tie break. Now that is a good one!

Basically, if winning means anything, every point counts. Staying focuse for 10 little points can seem almost impossible. Playing no ads gives you a shorter version. FOCUS is the key. Really it is.
 

mmk

Hall of Fame
#24
A couple years ago I was playing in a summer ladder, first to 10 games by 2, and my opponent suggested we play no-ad. I declined, but as the temperature and humidity went up (think DC area mid-July), we both agreed to use it. For time-limited matches, it makes sense, and when the conditions are brutal I'm all for it.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
#25
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
I play counting ping-pong to 21, 20-20 is a draw to limit the time of the game. Somebody complained that he could have won. I told him he also could have lost. You have to think both ways. That's today's Kung Fu flashback life lesson, grasshopper.
 
Last edited:
#27
If your opponent "should" have won the point, they would have won the point. If they screwed up, you absolutely deserve the point because you didn't screw up first.
Spoken like a true pro. I use to get so sick of hearing “ make them hit it one more time”. The games won are the one where YOU made less errors. But guess what? It’s twue, it’s twue!
 
#28
I play counting ping-pong to 21, 20-20 is a draw to limit the time of the game. Somebody complained that he could have won. I told him also could have lost. You have to think both ways. That's today's Kung Fu flashback life lesson, grasshopper.
Alright your attidude is obviously not very good.
 
#30
It is obvious we have different views on tennis and that is fine!
My view used to be similar to yours, but several better and more experienced players and coaches have altered my views over time. Fortunately its led to winning a lot more matches and big points. Sometimes it pays to be open minded to the experiences of others.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
#31
Pleases stick to the subject. What's the point with the bashing? Did I offend you in any way?
"Coulda, woulda, shoulda." is an actual word/phrase. It describes the phenomenon of "Monday quarterbacking", of how something could have been done differently on Sunday. The TRUTH is you couldn't (otherwise you did), and you would not (that's not the way you think), and MAYBE you should not try another possibility at that time.

And why do you PERCEIVE it as bashing?
 
#33
"Coulda, woulda, shoulda." is an actual word/phrase. It describes the phenomenon of "Monday quarterbacking", of how something could have been done differently on Sunday. The TRUTH is you couldn't (otherwise you did), and you would not (that's not the way you think), and MAYBE you should not try another possibility at that time.

And why do you PERCEIVE it as bashing?
Bashing because you took your time to take three words out of context unrelated to what my point of the thread was. To make it clear I thought of those point as 50/50 points and this time I lost three crucial ones as it was on no ad points. What I tried to clarify is that with no ad scoring a few mistakes, small margins or luck call it whatever you want has a bigger impact on the scoreboard compared to the regular scoring system.
 
#35
I play counting ping-pong to 21, 20-20 is a draw to limit the time of the game. Somebody complained that he could have won. I told him also could have lost. You have to think both ways. That's today's Kung Fu flashback life lesson, grasshopper.
Sorry I misinterpreted that. I did some research on the grasshopper thing. I just assumed it was not flattering but it was probably me not knowing my kung fu history. No hard feelings!
 
#36
Second - I believe numbers have been run on no-ad vs regular scoring and show that there is almost no difference in expected outcome
Interested if you have any more info on this?

I've seen models that show expected outcomes based on point win probabilities.
For example, if player A has a 70% win probability on player A serve points, and 35% win probability on player B serve points, then the most likely outcome might be for player A to win 6-3, 6-3 (made up result - I don't have the actual numbers handy). Also, there is a distribution curve of expected outcomes.

Intuitively I would think that playing no-ad would flatten the shape of the curve (basically making the outcome less predictable), and might also change the most likely expected outcome (in terms of match score). But I've never seen analysis comparing ad to no-ad, so if you can point me in that direction that would be great.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
#37
"Coulda, woulda, shoulda." is an actual word/phrase. It describes the phenomenon of "Monday quarterbacking", of how something could have been done differently on Sunday. The TRUTH is you couldn't (otherwise you did), and you would not (that's not the way you think), and MAYBE you should not try another possibility at that time.

And why do you PERCEIVE it as bashing?
I Googled. It's a lesson in tennis and in LUV.

 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
#38
That attitude will serve you poorly in years to come. Tennis is a game of getting the ball back in play one more time than your opponent. Not a game of getting it past your opponent. It's fun when it happens but more points are won because of UE's than Winners.

If your opponent "should" have won the point, they would have won the point. If they screwed up, you absolutely deserve the point because you didn't screw up first.
Try this on for size. In the Olympics, millions of dollars are won or lost on endorsement deals based on a fraction of a second. Wrap your head around that.
 
#39
Maybe so but if my opponent miss an easy put away or overhead after dominating a point I don't think I deserved to win it just because I kept the ball in play. On those occations when it is obvious that my opponent should have won the point I always aknowledge that and say something like "you had me there" or "that was your point".
So you give them the point, then? How altruistic of you! I'll play you any time if i get to keep the points i lose off of dumb errors!
 
#40
So you give them the point, then? How altruistic of you! I'll play you any time if i get to keep the points i lose off of dumb errors!
That is not what it is about. I can acknowledge when I am being outplayed and give the opponent some credit for that although I may have won the point.

Even Djokovic after he won one of those epic slam matches vs Wawrinka admitted that Wawrinka played the better tennis and he just tried to hang in there.
 
Last edited:
#41
That is not what it is about. I can acknowledge when I am being outplayed and give the opponent some credit for that although I may have won the point.

Even Djokovic after he won one of those epic slam matches vs Wawrinka admitted that Wawrinka played the better tennis and he just tried to hang in there.
Ever hear of Brad Gilbert? He was probably outplayed in every match he played and yet won the French Open. Style points are for social tennis.

Djokovic has won a lot of matches getting "outplayed but hanging on" by getting that next ball back.

I think you are mixing up being more aggressive with being outplayed. Aggressive tennis looks more dominant than defending tennis, but a defender isn't being outplayed. He's just got a different mindset and skill set. Many a good defender has won a tennis match where they looked outmatched. But they've learned the lesson that defense can win championships and getting more balls back can be a winning strategy.

"Serve for show, defend for dough"
 
#43
In a timed match, I would far prefer regular scoring to no ad.

If you make everyone play no ad in timed matches, you are changing the game in situations where the players could have finished in the allotted time.

I don’t like no ad in doubles. To win at deuce, you ought to have to beat both players to win the game (or conversely both receivers should have to beat the server).
 
#44
I don’t like no ad in doubles. To win at deuce, you ought to have to beat both players to win the game (or conversely both receivers should have to beat the server).
But in no-ad, receiving team can choose the returner in doubles, mitigating the servers advantage to some degree. In mixed, we always play no ad as "men serve to men and women serve to women". I'm not sure how this is unfair to either team.

i've played some awfully long deuce games in doubles that I wish I'd been able to play as no ad. In those games the ad court returner and server are taking on all the pressure.
 
#45
Right. In a service game, say the server has the advantage. She has the advantage for the duration of the game if there is regular scoring. The serving team has to beat the receiving team twice, meaning they have to beat the receivers in both of their receiving formations.

No ad, in contrast, discards that balance. Now, the receivers have the advantage instead of the server having it — they pick their stronger receiver and the returners partner need not survive the servers serve. It is about as logical as having a rule that at duece one receiver gets to receive twice and the other not at all. That feels wrong because we aren’t requiring both receivers to return well enough to win the game — only one has to.

I have played long duece games, but I see them as an exciting test of will. I am very proud if I hold after a long deuce game.
 
#46
Right. In a service game, say the server has the advantage. She has the advantage for the duration of the game if there is regular scoring. The serving team has to beat the receiving team twice, meaning they have to beat the receivers in both of their receiving formations.

No ad, in contrast, discards that balance. Now, the receivers have the advantage instead of the server having it — they pick their stronger receiver and the returners partner need not survive the servers serve. It is about as logical as having a rule that at duece one receiver gets to receive twice and the other not at all. That feels wrong because we aren’t requiring both receivers to return well enough to win the game — only one has to.

I have played long duece games, but I see them as an exciting test of will. I am very proud if I hold after a long deuce game.
I like ad too.

When I play practice sets against friends, I tend to always play ad. It feels more fun to practice with regular ad scoring, even though I know it would probably be more beneficial for my mental game to practice league/tournament match situations by playing no-ad.
 

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
#47
Not a fan of no ad, but I do OK in do or die point situations. But I prefer win by two.

As I age though, I need to appreciate quicker matches, especially in tourneys where one needs to get in 3-4 matches in one weekend. Even if time allows 3-4 90 minute matches in a weekend is a big toll on this older body.
 
#48
Ever hear of Brad Gilbert? He was probably outplayed in every match he played and yet won the French Open. Style points are for social tennis."
Brad Gilbert? Brad Gilbert won the French Open?

Wow, I've read "Winning Ugly" several times and can't find any mention of a French Open win. Pretty sure Brad would have mentioned that if it was the case.

BTW, I would not call Brad Gilbert a "Defensive" player. Brad Gilbert's main contribution to the sport was proving that the key to success is identifying your opponent's weaknesses and matching your strengths to those weaknesses. That is not "Defensive" tennis in the traditional sense.

(Brad's best result at the French Open was making the 3rd Round in 1993).

Winning tennis matches is all about finding the right "Risk -vs- Return" formula. The scoring format is pretty irrelevant. It is all "Risk -vs- Return". A scoring format like "No AD, Receiver's Choice" simply changes the "Risk -vs- Return" equation.
 
#49
Your opponent is better under pressure which is a great asset. Work on your mental game. Also if you retire due to injury at 2-5, unless the ambulance is hauling you away, it's going to look like you were afraid to admit he beat you. There are more ways to win a match than just having better strokes. He outwitted you. I had someone quit on me due to medical ("bad cold coming on"????) at 5-5 in the first set and I was annoyed because I do think she was afraid I was going to beat her (it was a ladder challenge and I was the lower player.)

A good drill: start off down 30-40 and it's no ad. Play this a ton.
 
#50
I have played long duece games, but I see them as an exciting test of will. I am very proud if I hold after a long deuce game.
Whereas you don't feel proud if you defeat the opponents good returner in a no-ad scenario. Seems to me a single point showdown against their best player is an excellent test of nerves.
 
Top