So only these 4 matches kept fan excitement?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.
There was a 25 year gap between McEnroe/Connors in '84 and Federer/Roddick in '09 where no exciting matches were played?
Whose to say the end result wouldn't have been the same if they had adopted no-Ad in 1980?
I can see how the drama would be extended with Ad vs no-Ad; however, I can't quantify what that difference is. For example, how many Deuces on average were there in the above matches?
One analogy I can see to Ad is baseball: when the count reaches 2 strikes, further foul balls are not counted as strikes. So a 3-2 count with the bases loaded at the bottom of the ninth produces some great tension that would not exist if the rule was, at 3-2, the next pitch is the last [foul ball = strike].
But people are arguing about changing baseball rules to make it more accessible [ie shorter duration] also. Golf too. So tennis is not alone.
I prefer Ad. Probably because that's how I learned to play.