No ad scoring system is very flawed

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
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.
My fault. I was sure he'd won a major amongst his 20 titles. Probably mixing him up with Jim Courier in my brain. Damn aging is a terrible thing. Next I'll be talking about the time Sampras won the French Open.

And yes you are very much right about risk vs return as the key. You can neither be so aggressive that you elevate the risk side of the equation nor so passive that you diminish the return side of the equation.

But my point is that sometimes aggressive players increase their risk and lose points because of it. The beneficiary should avoid the tendency to feel they got lucky or were outplayed. The aggressive players great shots and their errors come from the same tendencies and learning to take advantage of those tendencies by getting balls back and letting them self destruct is sound tennis and not to be dismissed as being outplayed but lucky.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Not a fan of no ad myself, but I don't think it is so flawed that it should be outright banned from tennis. It has it's merits and its flaws.

No-ad is tennis; version of the soccer shoot out. Yes, you'd prefer each team play until a normal goal is scored but you accept that sometimes expediency is needed in declaring a winner.
 

davced1

Hall of Fame
My fault. I was sure he'd won a major amongst his 20 titles. Probably mixing him up with Jim Courier in my brain. Damn aging is a terrible thing. Next I'll be talking about the time Sampras won the French Open.

And yes you are very much right about risk vs return as the key. You can neither be so aggressive that you elevate the risk side of the equation nor so passive that you diminish the return side of the equation.

But my point is that sometimes aggressive players increase their risk and lose points because of it. The beneficiary should avoid the tendency to feel they got lucky or were outplayed. The aggressive players great shots and their errors come from the same tendencies and learning to take advantage of those tendencies by getting balls back and letting them self destruct is sound tennis and not to be dismissed as being outplayed but lucky.
All good advice! What I try to do at the moment in matches is to bring my practice court game to the match court. In practice I play offensive tennis without to many unforced errors but in matches when I try the same there are to many errors so I resort to a defensive style tennis. I think to much about the score and get to tense and my game is not flowing. I am very competitive by nature but I try to relax and try to play my best tennis as I do on the practice court. I know I have to accept some losses along the way but the only way to ever play my best in matches is to keep trying, even on pressure points. I have in the past blown so many important points by playing to defensive so now I must learn to trust my offensive skills too and I will find the right balance!

I try to think of Wawrinkas tattoo
"Ever tried ever failed no matter try again fail again fail better"
 
Last edited:

schmke

Hall of Fame
All good advice! What I try to do at the moment in matches is to bring my practice court game to the match court. In practice I play offensive tennis without to many unforced errors but in matches when I try the same there are to many errors so I resort to a defensive style tennis. I think to much about the score and get to tense and my game is not flowing. I am very competitive by nature but I try to relax and try to play my best tennis as I do on the practice court. I know I have to accept some losses along the way but the only way to ever play my best in matches is to keep trying, even on pressure points. I have in the past blown so many important points by playing to defensive so now I must learn to trust my offensive skills too and I will find the right balance!

I try to think of Wawrinkas tattoo
"Ever tried ever failed no matter try again fail again fail better"
Rather than switching to play a defensive style, considering staying aggressive, but just aiming for more conservative targets until you have a shorter ball you have more margin to aim for a line or angle with.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
But my point is that sometimes aggressive players increase their risk and lose points because of it. The beneficiary should avoid the tendency to feel they got lucky or were outplayed. The aggressive players great shots and their errors come from the same tendencies and learning to take advantage of those tendencies by getting balls back and letting them self destruct is sound tennis and not to be dismissed as being outplayed but lucky.
Oh, I agree with the gist of what you are saying here for sure.

Players at many levels tend to "lose" more tennis matches by their own hand than they "win".

That is the reason why Match Statistics recored "Errors" and analysts and commentators often focus on those specific stats.

I tend to differntiate between "Aggressive Tennis" and "Attacking Tennis". I don't think "Aggressive Tennis" wins a player more matches. In fact it is probably quite the opposite. But I do believe that "Attacking Tennis" certainly increases the probability of winning matches although there is no guarantee.

Personally, I prefer shorter formats because the better player will usually prevail. There will still be Upset results but they will usually come from Retirements or Defaults.

I also dislike the way Tennis is a lot more about athleticism these days. I want to see the skills and variation that was on display thirty or forty years ago. I want the sport to be inclusive even at the highest level so a player does not have to be a 6foot + super human to be the best of the best.

I want to see a lot more players playing the sport at all levels.

Shorter formats promote these things.

Perhaps keep the longer formats for Big Tournaments or for the Finals and Semi Finals of events outside of the Professional Tours.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I prefer shorter formats because the better player will usually prevail.
I come to the opposite conclusion: the longer the format, the more likely the better player will win. The shorter the format, the more randomness plays a factor.

Think of it this way: am I more likely to beat Federer if the entire match was just one point or a regular best of 5? I'm never going to beat Federer in a regular match but I just might get lucky with a net cord or wild serve.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I come to the opposite conclusion: the longer the format, the more likely the better player will win. The shorter the format, the more randomness plays a factor.

Think of it this way: am I more likely to beat Federer if the entire match was just one point or a regular best of 5? I'm never going to beat Federer in a regular match but I just might get lucky with a net cord or wild serve.
An interesting debate.

I challenge your view on the basis that most, if not all, tennis matches are usually decided by a few critical points regardless of the length of the match. Shorter formats tend to reduce the influence of critical points by creating a situation where there are more of them in comparison to longer formats. There will always be some degree of randomness in the sport. Shorter formats reduce the impact of that randomness because there are more critical points - esp. with No AD format.

These days, the longer the format, the more likely the physically fitter player will win. That isn't Tennis for me that sounds more like a running marathon.

Tennis has always been a game of mental and physical prowess. In recent times, the physical prowess has overtaken the mental side as the key factor. Shorter formats go some way to redressing the balance. Players have a shorter time in which to figure out ways to succeed so they have to "Think" more about what they are doing.

I think a lot of the perceived problems with the "NO AD" format could be mitigated by playing at least one Deuce / AD / Deuce sequence before triggering the NO AD point. So at Deuce, at least two more points have to be played to decide the Game.

As for your Federer example. What happens if you play ten "Single Point" Matches against Federer? Or a hundred "Single Point" matches against him? You might get lucky and beat him once or twice. But overall, he is going to win most of the matches, as would be case with regular formats.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I also dislike the way Tennis is a lot more about athleticism these days. I want to see the skills and variation that was on display thirty or forty years ago. I want the sport to be inclusive even at the highest level so a player does not have to be a 6foot + super human to be the best of the best.
After watching the Borg vs McEnroe movie, I certainly got whimsical about the loss of artistry in tennis. Tennis is so cookie cutter and the power game has destroyed the all court masters. Even Borg knew how to volley and slice despite his baseline prowess. You don’t win 5 straight Wimbledon titles with a wooden racket if you can’t slice and volley.

I’d be in favor of allowing only one serve. Tennis is the only racquet sport that gives a freebie on serve. It has led to an over importance of that single attribute. You don’t see that in badminton, ping pong or pickleball.

But there’s no way traditionalists would go for it. I’m not sure how fans would react to it as well. I personally hate servebot matches.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
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.
So, you're a dirty pusher now who has to play no ad tennis to win, is that what you're saying?
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I’d be in favor of allowing only one serve. Tennis is the only racquet sport that gives a freebie on serve. It has led to an over importance of that single attribute. You don’t see that in badminton, ping pong or pickleball.
Yes, this has perplexed me for many years. The only issue I have with the single serve is that it might remove a lot of the risk taking and also remove the wily second serve skills.

Perhaps some sort of compromise could be concocted. Maybe only allow a second serve on certain points (say Game points) or in Tiebreakers?

Servebot matches have only really come about because of the evolution in tennis equipment, racquets and strings. As I mentioned in other threads, perhaps limiting racquet hoop sizes and mandating the use of synthetic gut or natural gut in sanctioned tournament play may rebalance the situation a bit.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
I come to the opposite conclusion: the longer the format, the more likely the better player will win. The shorter the format, the more randomness plays a factor.
This, though you'd think it was quantum mechanics the way people are struggling to grasp it. The whole point of ad/deuce is to make you prove you deserve it. Game in, game out. You can't hide behind chance. The scoring system is what makes tennis so unique.

But for convenience or whatever, no ad is understandable and not the end of the world, when you have a large tournament to organize and only a weekend to get it done in.

It is being floated out there at the moment simply to espalier tennis to suit the needs of television. Fast fours is fun to play, but grotesque when viewed as what they intend for the future of tennis.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
This, though you'd think it was quantum mechanics the way people are struggling to grasp it. The whole point of ad/deuce is to make you prove you deserve it. Game in, game out. You can't hide behind chance. The scoring system is what makes tennis so unique.

But for convenience or whatever, no ad is understandable and not the end of the world, when you have a large tournament to organize and only a weekend to get it done in.

It is being pushed simply to espalier tennis to suit the needs of television.
I don't buy into the Deuce / Ad makes the player prove they deserve the win. The tennis scoring system oftens leads to situations where the player who won the most points in the match lost the match.

In that way there is a significant element of chance in the way tennis works simply because a player does not always know which points are the critical ones at any given moment. The NO AD system sort of takes that aspect away. All NO AD points are critical points.

And while I agree that changes to the format have often been influenced by the needs of Media Broacasters (TV certainly influenced the introduction of TieBreak Sets decades ago etc.), the newer formats like FAST 4 and Short Sets have been driven by the National Tennis Associations who want to make the sport more attractive to junior players and their "Time Poor" Parents.

The pace of the modern world often does not leave much time for parents to be flexible about childrens sporting activities. Parents want fixed schedules with fixed start times, fixed durations, and fixed finishing times for sporting activities. Shorter tennis match formats are much better suited to these lifestyles.

The other huge benefit of shorter formats for junior players and developing players is that it gives these players much greater opportunity to play many more players over the journey.

Personally, I would rather see a junior player play 5, 6 or even more shorter matches over a Weekend, than 1 or 2 longer ones. The shorter matches allow for more breaks between matches which gives the players more time to reflect on their play and more opportunities to experiment with their game sooner.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
I don't buy into the Deuce / Ad makes the player prove they deserve the win. The tennis scoring system oftens leads to situations where the player who won the most points in the match lost the match.
Because it isn't about total points. Otherwise it'd just be first to 100 or some crap.
To succeed at tennis you need to be clutch enough to win the right point at the right time, and have the ability to see the bigger perspective and be able to position yourself to do so.

That's tennis. If you don't like it, then maybe it is time.....
 
As for your Federer example. What happens if you play ten "Single Point" Matches against Federer? Or a hundred "Single Point" matches against him? You might get lucky and beat him once or twice. But overall, he is going to win most of the matches, as would be case with regular formats.
No one's arguing Federer won't win most of the matches. What I'm arguing is that I will win more matches if they consist of a single point compared to if they were the full best of 5.

To win in the single point match, I just have to hit one lucky shot.

To win the best of 5, I have to hit many, many, many lucky shots.

I'm not saying I will hit this lucky shot frequently. Whatever very low % it is, it's still orders of magnitude more than my chances of winning a best of 5.

If you put a large enough # of monkeys in front of a large enough # of computers, eventually one of them will produce the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet. That's just randomness. But it's much more likely that they will produce "But soft" than the entire scene.

If you're interested in the subject, read *Fooled By Randomness* by Taleb. Fascinating stuff.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Because it isn't about total points. Otherwise it'd just be first to 100 or some crap.
To succeed at tennis you need to be clutch enough to win the right point at the right time, and have the ability to see the bigger perspective and be able to position yourself to do so.
To succeed at Tennis you just have to win ONE Point! And you know which point that is!

As for the Pickleball, I actually prefer something along these lines ....





Preferably played at this place ....


 

Bobs tennis

Semi-Pro
Play the scoring system that your given. I myself watched several 5 set matches at the us open in blistering heat and felt that is to much. I wish no add scoring and 3 sets would become the norm. I have a friend that usually beats me in 2 sets but I always tell him I would have won the 5th set...:cool:
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Gilbert and Brayden used to say that one of the best ways to develop your game was to play Best of 3, 40 Point Tiebreakers (IE First to 21 Points with a lead of 2 points wins.)
 

li0scc0

Hall of Fame
Here is an example of why no-ad is a major change to the game..
Doubles. Server A is serving, and the game gets to deuce.
Deuce court, Server A and partner have been winning about 65% of points. He's not serving great to that court, and the deuce court returner is excellent.
Ad court, Server A and partner are winning 90% of points. Many aces and service winners on 1st AND second serves, and those returned are sitters.
The game happens to go to deuce, as mentioned.
Where do you think the return team is going to request the serve?
In a real game, Server A and partner are going to be highly likely to win (mathematically the likelihood Server A and partner would win a deuce game with AD is 94.4%. The opponents likelihood to win is 5.6%
(have to win two in a row starting in the deuce court, then ad. Likelihood servers win two in a row is 58.5% (.65*.9 = .585 or 58.5%), likelihood returners win two in a row is 3.5% (.35*.1=.035 or 3.5%), likelihood it gets to another deuce is 38%. Thus the likelihood server team wins is .585/(.585+.035) = .944, and returners is 1-.944=.056 ).
However, in No Ad, since the opponents will choose the deuce court, their likelihood to win is 40%.
So...in Ad play, returners are 5.6% likely to win, in No Ad, they are 40% likely. A dramatic difference!!!
And yes, the better strategy would be not to get to deuce in the first place, but that is irrelevant to the point of this argument.
 
Last edited:

schmke

Hall of Fame
Here is an example of why no-ad is a major change to the game..
Doubles. Server A is serving, and the game gets to deuce.
Deuce court, Server A and partner have been winning about 65% of points. He's not serving great to that court, and the deuce court returner is excellent.
Ad court, Server A and partner are winning 90% of points. Many aces and service winners on 1st AND second serves, and those returned are sitters.
The game happens to go to deuce, as mentioned.
Where do you think the return team is going to request the serve?
In a real game, Server A and partner are going to be highly likely to win (mathematically the likelihood Server A and partner would win a deuce game with AD is 94.4%. The opponents likelihood to win is 5.6%
(have to win two in a row starting in the deuce court, then ad. Likelihood servers win two in a row is 58.5% (.65*.9 = .585 or 58.5%), likelihood returners win two in a row is 3.5% (.35*.1=.035 or 3.5%), likelihood it gets to another deuce is 38%. Thus the likelihood server team wins is .585/(.585+.035) = .944, and returners is 1-.944=.056 ).
However, in No Ad, since the opponents will choose the deuce court, their likelihood to win is 40%.
So...in Ad play, returners are 5.6% likely to win, in No Ad, they are 40% likely. A dramatic difference!!!
And yes, the better strategy would be not to get to deuce in the first place, but that is irrelevant to the point of this argument.
It's not irrelevant as the fact that the game got to deuce throws your point winning percentages out the window.

If the point winning percentages really were what you say, the chance that it gets to deuce is <5% so the serving team had ample opportunity to put the percentages you list into play and win the game without it getting to deuce. So clearly the point percentages aren't what you say, or getting to deuce is so rare that the higher chance of the opponent winning a no-ad deuce vs a regular deuce is largely inconsequential.

Also, it isn't clear how you go from the opponents having a 35% chance of winning the point if served to the deuce player to saying they have a 40% chance of winning no-ad. A little extra 5% suddenly just to make your point?

But back to the math, so <5% of the time it goes to deuce, and of that instead of 5.6% of those games being won by the returner (0.28% of the games, e.g. 0.05*0.056) 35% of them are won by the returner (1.75%, e.g. 0.05*0.35), a difference of 1.47%, or about one in every 70 games served in this scenario. Consider that in a normal 3rd set TB match the given server you mention is only going to serve 5-6 times, we are talking about one "unfair" break of serve due to no-ad in every 12 or so matches played between these doubles teams.

Like I said, it is largely inconsequential.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
Gilbert and Brayden used to say that one of the best ways to develop your game was to play Best of 3, 40 Point Tiebreakers (IE First to 21 Points with a lead of 2 points wins.)
That's volleyball scoring isn't it?


As for the Pickleball, I actually prefer something along these lines ....

Ughhh, put it away! That's like showing off your hemorrhoids at the dinner table.
I hate the mongoloid schizophrenic love child of soccer and rugby, it's inescapable here in melbourne.
imagine how good gary ablett senior would have been at tennis though.
 

mmk

Hall of Fame
That's volleyball scoring isn't it?



Ughhh, put it away! That's like showing off your hemorrhoids at the dinner table.
I hate the mongoloid schizophrenic love child of soccer and rugby, it's inescapable here in melbourne.
imagine how good gary ablett senior would have been at tennis though.
A late friend of mine from Melbourne called it "The Religion"
 

SDRIA

New User
Tennis is supposed to be a sport, and no-ad scoring takes the sport out of the game of tennis. It takes away conditioning and physicality. Ad scoring forces players to dominate a game to win it. Some of the most exciting matches I’ve seen involved players duking it out over multiple duece points.
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Tennis is supposed to be a sport, and no-ad scoring takes the sport out of the game of tennis. It takes away conditioning and physicality. Ad scoring forces players to dominate a game to win it. Some of the most exciting matches I’ve seen involved players duking it out over multiple duece points.
No doubt, ad scoring is generally preferred. But no-ad also forces you to dominate a game to assure victory. Winning points at 40-15 and 40-30 becomes much more important in a no-ad game. You don’t want to leave holding your serve down to a sudden death point if you can help it.

No ad just allows you to get more games in a set time frame. That’s really it’s value. I played a match today that took 2 hours to complete 2 sets, then we had to stop at 4-6 7-6 (8-6). Multiple extended deuce games. Real tight battle that was a lot of fun, but it’s not always easy to get that much court time, and we still didn’t finish a match.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Tennis is supposed to be a sport, and no-ad scoring takes the sport out of the game of tennis. It takes away conditioning and physicality.
IMO, "Conditioning and Physicality" has RUINED the sport to some extent.

Tennis (more accurately "Lawn Tennis") has always been predominantly a sport of mental prowess, tactics, strategy, and playing style. Until recently, different players were able to be successful with different playing styles that encompassed mental prowess, use of tactics, strategy and guile.

Sports science has ruined the sport by turning it into a Boxing match, a sport that is BASH-BASH. It has become a war of attrition mainly about athleticism and physical strength. Not even advances in technology have mitigated this.

Going forward, the best way to combat this is to shorten the length of matches, and to increase the value of certain Points in a game so that mental prowess regains its former influence. Fortunately this is likely to happen as people are now "time poor" and Media Broadcasters want to package up sports into time limited viewer friendly chunks.

I want to see situations where players with the physique of a Michael Chang and a John Isner can go head to head and both have a decent chance of making it to ATP Top 5 and win Major tournaments.

We need a sport where player with Serve and Volley players can realistically compete with Baseline Bashers.
 
Last edited:

SDRIA

New User
IMO, "Conditioning and Physicality" has RUINED the sport to some extent.

Tennis (more accurately "Lawn Tennis") has always been predominantly a sport of mental prowess, tactics, strategy, and playing style. Until recently, different players were able to be successful with different playing styles that encompassed mental prowess, use of tactics, strategy and guile.

Sports science has ruined the sport by turning it into a Boxing match, a sport that is BASH-BASH. It has become a war of attrition mainly about athleticism and physical strength. Not even advances in technology have mitigated this.

Going forward, the best way to combat this is to shorten the length of matches, and to increase the value of certain Points in a game so that mental prowess regains its former influence. Fortunately this is likely to happen as people are now "time poor" and Media Broadcasters want to package up sports into time limited viewer friendly chunks.

I want to see situations where players with the physique of a Michael Chang and a John Isner can go head to head and both have a decent chance of making it to ATP Top 5 and win Major tournaments.

We need a sport where player with Serve and Volley players can realistically compete with Baseline Bashers.
I don’t know which era you’re talking about, but even the ore-Open era pros talked about the physicality of the sport and importance of conditioning in tennis, in addition to strategy and tactics. Ad scoring existed during every era of the sport and never interfered with mental prowess, strategy, tactics, and guile. No ad scoring harms tennis by making it wimpy and boring. We need to see more matches where at 5 all in the last set both players are fighting over multiple duece points to win that important game. Now that’s exciting!

If you’re concerned about the revival of the serve and volley game, how does no ad scoring accomplish that? Serve and volley is more effective on faster courts, so your concern should be solely with speeding up grass and hard courts, which were both purposely slowed down about ten to fifteen years ago, to make the serve and volley game less effective.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Serve and volley is more effective on faster courts, so your concern should be solely with speeding up grass and hard courts, which were both purposely slowed down about ten to fifteen years ago, to make the serve and volley game less effective.
Actually they were slowed down to make “serve and no volley” less effective. People were just rifling aces without even needing to follow the serve in. You could win matches on those surfaces with a single stroke and tactic.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
So someone actually did the math regarding no ad vs normal deuce scoring: https://blog.mathspace.co/the-mathematical-reason-for-deuce-78e563edc612

Basically, for those uninterested in reading, for a match between a stronger opponent and a weaker one, assuming the stronger opponent has a 70% chance of winning each point on average. With deuce scoring, he has a 90% chance of winning each game and with no ad, he has an 87% chance of winning each game.

So while no ad does increase the chance of an upset (I could argue there is very little wrong with a few more upsets) the actual numbers are pretty marginal. It certainly doesn't support a "fundamentally flawed" argument.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
So someone actually did the math regarding no ad vs normal deuce scoring: https://blog.mathspace.co/the-mathematical-reason-for-deuce-78e563edc612

Basically, for those uninterested in reading, for a match between a stronger opponent and a weaker one, assuming the stronger opponent has a 70% chance of winning each point on average. With deuce scoring, he has a 90% chance of winning each game and with no ad, he has an 87% chance of winning each game.

So while no ad does increase the chance of an upset (I could argue there is very little wrong with a few more upsets) the actual numbers are pretty marginal. It certainly doesn't support a "fundamentally flawed" argument.
Concur, and this is consistent with what I wrote earlier.

Note that the OP's scenario was not just a flat 70%, but was doubles where he claimed it was 65% to one receiver and 90% to the other. This is going to reduce the chances it even gets to deuce and make the difference affect even fewer games.

In fact, doing the full analysis like MathSpace did on the OP's scenario, there is a <1% difference between ad and no-ad for the chance of winning the game. With ad scoring the serving team would win 97.97% of the time and with no-ad it would be 97.11%. Like I said, inconsequential and like @Dartagnan64 said, pretty marginal.
 

SDRIA

New User
Some of these comments that I’ve come across here and elsewhere make me wonder whether the federations, particularly the ITF and USTA, hire trolls, sock puppets, and other professional propagandists to raid forums like this one to push their stupid ideas that are effectively destroying the Game for talented juniors from less fortunate backgrounds who will run faster, jump higher, think better and do anything else it takes to win the point, set, and match. So many things that the federations have been doing lately will do nothing other than return tennis back to where the federations always wanted it to be since their inception in the late 1800’s: in country clubs, a game for the elite social classes only, like polo. If you would like more details, read my other posts to get a better understanding of what I’m talking about.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Some of these comments that I’ve come across here and elsewhere make me wonder whether the federations, particularly the ITF and USTA, hire trolls, sock puppets, and other professional propagandists to raid forums like this one to push their stupid ideas that are effectively destroying the Game for talented juniors from less fortunate backgrounds who will run faster, jump higher, think better and do anything else it takes to win the point, set, and match. So many things that the federations have been doing lately will do nothing other than return tennis back to where the federations always wanted it to be since their inception in the late 1800’s: in country clubs, a game for the elite social classes only, like polo. If you would like more details, read my other posts to get a better understanding of what I’m talking about.
Whoa ther Don Quixote, your railing against a lot of windmills there in that tirade.

I doubt Fast 4 represents a conspiracy. It’s just a way to get more matches in less time. It’s not a tool of the Illuminati.
 

CHtennis

Rookie
Some of these comments that I’ve come across here and elsewhere make me wonder whether the federations, particularly the ITF and USTA, hire trolls, sock puppets, and other professional propagandists to raid forums like this one to push their stupid ideas that are effectively destroying the Game for talented juniors from less fortunate backgrounds who will run faster, jump higher, think better and do anything else it takes to win the point, set, and match. So many things that the federations have been doing lately will do nothing other than return tennis back to where the federations always wanted it to be since their inception in the late 1800’s: in country clubs, a game for the elite social classes only, like polo. If you would like more details, read my other posts to get a better understanding of what I’m talking about.
So, I did used to work for the USTA so maybe I am a sock puppet (like a cool orange one though) but what they wanted was more people to play so that they would bring in more money (this is not the official stated goal, they make it sound more noble). I dont think making it more elite is the way they want to do that, but what does a sock puppet know?

Back to the issue. No ad scoring just makes it feel like there is a lot more variance right? There is more variance obviously but way easier to point to those 5 points and reverse them and see the score. Harder to say when yes you were only 2 of ten for break points since that does not immediately switch the games score. I think that no ad just FEELS way more lucky even though it is just a little bit more.
 

SDRIA

New User
Whoa ther Don Quixote, your railing against a lot of windmills there in that tirade.

I doubt Fast 4 represents a conspiracy. It’s just a way to get more matches in less time. It’s not a tool of the Illuminati.
You think I’m talking about Fast 4? Lol. If you had read my other posts, you would have understood that I wasn’t talking about how rec players wish to keep score. My only concern is with no ad scoring creeping into the juniors and pros. It’s already being used in college singles. The last thing the American tennis industry needs is another nail in the coffin hammered in hard once again by the USTA and ITF.
 

SDRIA

New User
So, I did used to work for the USTA so maybe I am a sock puppet (like a cool orange one though) but what they wanted was more people to play so that they would bring in more money (this is not the official stated goal, they make it sound more noble). I dont think making it more elite is the way they want to do that, but what does a sock puppet know?

Back to the issue. No ad scoring just makes it feel like there is a lot more variance right? There is more variance obviously but way easier to point to those 5 points and reverse them and see the score. Harder to say when yes you were only 2 of ten for break points since that does not immediately switch the games score. I think that no ad just FEELS way more lucky even though it is just a little bit more.
No ad scoring has no place in high level juniors, college, and the pros.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
No ad scoring has no place in high level juniors, college, and the pros.
Well it is too bad that you think that way because it is pretty clear that the game is heading in that direction for a multitude of reasons that have already been highlighted in this thread.

You should understand that Professional Sport only survives and evolves primarily because of one thing ... MONEY!

The entities that supply that money are the ones that will dictate the direction that a Pro. Sport heads in. And that in turn, dictates the direction that the lower levels of the sport head in.

At this point, the main entities providing the funding for Pro Tennis are Media Broadcasters and their Sponsors. And these entities want sport to be delivered in "bite sized" packages that are palatable to a time poor audience. Sports science and modern equipment have moved the game to a point that is not really compatible with this aim. Initiatives like NO AD scoring are attempting to redress the balance by returning the Mental prowess aspects of the sport to its proper place at the pinnacle of a tennis player's skill set.

Even so, at the end of the day NO AD scoring system doesn't really change anything. All other things being equal, the best player will still win more often than not.

Or do you believe that the players who won Major Tournaments when they were Best of 5 Advantage Sets are superior to the ones who win them today.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
No ad scoring has no place in high level juniors, college, and the pros.
The math is pretty clear that no ad scoring barely moves the fairness needle. And it moves it more in line with other sports where there is a much higher variance in who wins and loses.
 

SDRIA

New User
Well it is too bad that you think that way because it is pretty clear that the game is heading in that direction for a multitude of reasons that have already been highlighted in this thread.

You should understand that Professional Sport only survives and evolves primarily because of one thing ... MONEY!

The entities that supply that money are the ones that will dictate the direction that a Pro. Sport heads in. And that in turn, dictates the direction that the lower levels of the sport head in.

At this point, the main entities providing the funding for Pro Tennis are Media Broadcasters and their Sponsors. And these entities want sport to be delivered in "bite sized" packages that are palatable to a time poor audience. Sports science and modern equipment have moved the game to a point that is not really compatible with this aim. Initiatives like NO AD scoring are attempting to redress the balance by returning the Mental prowess aspects of the sport to its proper place at the pinnacle of a tennis player's skill set.

Even so, at the end of the day NO AD scoring system doesn't really change anything. All other things being equal, the best player will still win more often than not.

Or do you believe that the players who won Major Tournaments when they were Best of 5 Advantage Sets are superior to the ones who win them today.
No ad scoring changes everything because it turns tennis into a game for wimps. Tennis will no longer be respected as a sport if no ad scoring is implemented into high level juniors and the pros. Not even “time poor audiences” will waste their little time watching a game devoid of great athleticism, fitness, and excitement. That’s where the revenues must be coming from, the fans, first and foremost, because of high fan interest, and not from media broadcasters and advertisers in some type of subsidy arrangement that you portrayed. You made it seem as if tennis is on life support like the WNBA. Lol!

Multiple duece games late in the last set is the drug that brings the fans back for more, especially when you have two American greats going at each other in the late stages of a highly contested match! Today’s younger generation have no idea what they’re missing out on largely because the USTA and ITF have adversely interfered with the development of American champions.

But how do you get an association of hackers and losers to understand this? Keep in mind that the association is run by a group of hackers who have found their way into key positions where they can impose their amateur and elitist ideals (class discrimination) onto tennis and who want to control every aspect a sport that they cannot even play themselves.

By the way, no ad scoring also turns tennis from a game of chess into a game of checkers. It turns tennis into a game for wimps, both physical and mental wimps. I’m surprised someone who shows tremendous concern for “mental prowess” doesn’t understand this.
 

SDRIA

New User
The math is pretty clear that no ad scoring barely moves the fairness needle. And it moves it more in line with other sports where there is a much higher variance in who wins and loses.
I’m talking about fitness. I’m talking about not turning tennis into a game for wimps by way of no ad scoring. I’ve never posted any concern regarding fairness. No ad scoring moves the FITNESS needle over to the WIMP side!
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
By the way, no ad scoring also turns tennis from a game of chess to a game of checkers. It turns it into a game for both physical and mental wimps. I’m surprised someone who shows tremendous concern for “mental prowess” doesn’t understand this.
I actually think you have it the wrong way around. "Mental Prowess" influences the effectivess of being able to perform successfully in a high pressure situation when the odds of success are close to "Even". NO AD scoring systems are the epitome of such situations.

It is virtually impossible to use strategic planning effectively in a situation that is primarily dependant on physical athleticisim. In that case, the physically superior athlete will be successful most of the time. (Consider Usain Bolt as an example.) In tennis, the influence of modern sports science and modern equipment has reduced the importance of "Mental Prowess" in the sport.

And it does not tip the balance in favour of the inferior physical athlete. Even if it did, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. I do not want a sport full of mindless physical robots playing bash-bash for hours on end. I want to see personalities, characters, with different playing styles, all with a reasonable chance of success over a longer period of time. That's what all sport should be about. It should not be a race to Super Humanism! Otherwise, ditch the human elements and just teach Robots how to play sport.

I apply the same principle to Motor Racing. Everyone knows you could race much faster cars in a much safer environment if you just developed Remote Control Cars. So why don't they do it in F1 or Indy?
 

SGM1980

Rookie
I play a tournament with a modified no-ad scoring system that others have mentioned. It works quite well and is pretty fair.

At the first deuce you play two points like normal. If you get to a second deuce then you play a single point for the game. Single point is to the same sex if mixed and receivers choice if not.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I’m talking about fitness. I’m talking about not turning tennis into a game for wimps by way of no ad scoring. I’ve never posted any concern regarding fairness. No ad scoring moves the FITNESS needle over to the WIMP side!
Really. Tennis should be a game for marathon runners and Tour de France champions only? Tennis players are already some of the most fit athletes on the planet. That wasn’t how the forefathers ever envisioned the sport. They never envisioned 20 ball baseline rallies. It was to be played on natural surfaces where serving and coming to the net would allow points to be won quickly without succumbing to the vagaries of odd bounces.
Asphalt courts, modern rackets and strings have bastardized Tennis to the sport it is today. A baseline grinders game where volleying has become an afterthought and fitness rules far more than it did at its inception. The forefathers are likely turning in their graves.
So given the evolution of the sport away from its original design, why rail against one more modernizing addition. Your view of tennis is not the right one. It’s just yours. And it’s not based on any of the realities of where Tennis originated.

But I can see if your game is based on fitness rather than any weapons, No ad would bother you. Kind of like how polyester strings bothered Sampras.
 

stapletonj

Hall of Fame
Not the biggest fan in the world of no-ad, but it does move the game along and is fairly fair.
I do think that no ad should be best 2 out of 3 full sets, not the 10 point tiebreaker if split sets.
7 points per game, max. 6 all gets a tiebreaker. that's a max of 84 points per set before a tiebreaker. MAX. So a marathon 3 tiebreaker match (other then the tiebreaker itself) lasts 250 points MAX?
If a match goes like that, it is almost assuredly an epic battle, and is worth the time spent.

Dont get me started on pro sets. I think those were cooked up for exo. matches so the pros could get out of town quickly while still pocketing the $.
Hate them with a passion.
 

SDRIA

New User
Really. Tennis should be a game for marathon runners and Tour de France champions only? Tennis players are already some of the most fit athletes on the planet. That wasn’t how the forefathers ever envisioned the sport. They never envisioned 20 ball baseline rallies. It was to be played on natural surfaces where serving and coming to the net would allow points to be won quickly without succumbing to the vagaries of odd bounces.
Asphalt courts, modern rackets and strings have bastardized Tennis to the sport it is today. A baseline grinders game where volleying has become an afterthought and fitness rules far more than it did at its inception. The forefathers are likely turning in their graves.
So given the evolution of the sport away from its original design, why rail against one more modernizing addition. Your view of tennis is not the right one. It’s just yours. And it’s not based on any of the realities of where Tennis originated.

But I can see if your game is based on fitness rather than any weapons, No ad would bother you. Kind of like how polyester strings bothered Sampras.
Here is solid proof that you are not the tennis expert or historian that you would like your readers to believe you are:


Contrary to your claim that the “baseline grinder” games are a result of “asphalt courts, modern racquets and strings,” you just witnessed two baseline bashers as far back as 1931. Did you see anyone coming to the net in this video? Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of all playing styles. I am simply pointing out that you’re having some serious credibility issues as someone who would like to be respected as some type of authority on tennis.

Also, you said that there were “forefathers” of tennis. Modern tennis was invented about twenty years before the formation of the USTA by two wealthy men and was played exclusively among the wealthy classes. The USTA was then formed in 1881 and was committed fully to keeping it there, but, this year, we are presently celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Open tennis which marks a victory over the USTA and other federations who were forced by Lamar Hunt to finally allow players from less fortunate backgrounds, like Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales, and other greats to play in their Grand Slams. Lamar Hunt created an ATP-like tour to compete with Slams, and he succeeded! Before this victory, the USTA and other federations penalized Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Kramer, Riggs, and other greats by prohibiting them from playing in the Slams simply because they refused to continue playing for them for free, like a slave. As you may already understand, historically and to this day, some wealthy people have a serious problem with people who refuse to work for free and demand a living wage.

Moving on, here are some regular ad scoring pro matches of players whose games are based on both fitness and weapons:

McEnroe defeated Connors in the 1984 US Open Semifinals 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-3.

Connors defeated McEnroe in the 1982 Wimbledon Finals 3-6, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6, 6-4.

McEnroe defeated Connors in the 1980 US Open Semifinals 6-4,5-7, 0-6, 6-3, 7-6.

Federer defeated Roddick in the 2009 Wimbledon finals 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14.

These matches were the drugs that brought the fans back wanting more. This level of excitement where all playing styles were on full display by extremely fit athletes with incredible weapons would never be produced by No Ad scoring.

But No Ad scoring is just the tip of the iceberg that could very well snuff out this level of excitement and interest by discouraging talented juniors from less fortunate backgrounds to even consider playing the game. Without them, tennis would not be where it is today. Again look at where all the American greats came from. It certainly was not the country club.

It is undeniable that the USTA has historically been involved in blatant class discrimination since its inception in 1881, and I believe this is still true to this day. This is one of the main reasons that explains why the US hasn’t produced a dominant male pro world no. 1, like Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras, in a very long time. The USTA, the ITF, and the other federations are all unashamedly guilty of openly desiring to keep the sport for the elite social classes, like polo, and the implementation of the new ITF Transition Tour, for juniors aspiring to become professionals, proves this. The soaring National Junior Tournament registration fees also prove that the USTA wants to make it practically impossible for the less fortunate to play at their tournaments so that the children of their donor classes have a better chance of earning national ranking points and winning the tournament. Some of these fees are as high as $146 per player! Can you imagine the financial impact this will have on less fortunate families with just two promising tennis junior athletes both wanting to play? These fees could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many tennis-loving families, and the USTA know this. They know these families are already struggling with the high costs of just the very basics: a decent pair of tennis shoes that regularly need to be replaced, multiple tennis racquets, constant tennis stringing and strings, travel expenses, lodging, meals, etc. No Ad scoring gives good players from wealthy backgrounds a better chance of succeeding at the junior level and into the pros because it takes fitness and conditioning out of the sport.

I usually don’t continue on with someone who has lost all credibility, but I made an exception with you this one time to get this message out to anyone interested in saving the sport of tennis from crashing into the iceberg that the USTA and the ITF have sent its way. Please have the last word. I’m not interested in debating someone who writes like a propagandist.

By the way, it did feel as if I was being tag teamed by a group of propagandists working incognito for the USTA and ITF to push their stupid ideas.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Not sure I’d call that clip of Tilden a demonstration of power baseline grinding. Pretty standard all court play with fairly short points and little racing around because of the high number of slices. Guys are playing in pants and sweaters for heavens sake. Imagine the fitness needed wasn’t more than the average 4.0 rec match.

But you clearly have strong opinions about where you feel tennis needs to go. But it’s just that. Your opinion. My opinion is that no ad is neither the best thing or worst thing in tennis. It’s just an alternate way to finish games faster which is required in some settings. The math shows that it doesn’t reward anyone, fit or unfit. It only modestly affects number of points per game, and does nothing to affect shots per point which is where fitness really comes into play.
 
Top