No ad scoring system is very flawed

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.
So only these 4 matches kept fan excitement?

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.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
McEnroe, Connors, Roddick? You seem to be very American Centric.

Connors had weapons? Really? Perhaps his very flat DHBH might be classed as a weapon I suppose.
McEnroe, great Lefty serve, great net skills. Groundstrokes were rubbish for the most part.
Roddick. Big first serve. That's about it!

And I respectfully disagree with your comments that No Ad gives good players from wealthy backgrounds a better chance of succeeding. The biggest POTENTIAL advantages players from wealthy backgrounds receive is the OPPORTUNITY to do more private lessons and training, and the means to compete at larger numbers of tournaments. IOpportunity and potential are simply that, nothing else. NO Ad scoring systems does not enhance those two things. If anything it would actually be the opposite.

The numbers are quite clear. The statistical differences between Ad Scoring and No Ad Scoring are insignificant across several matches. The better player will win more matches either way. No Ad scoring more than likely leads to more match opportunities in a given time frame which is also better for junior players.
 

badmice2

Semi-Pro
Cannot blame no-ad scoring for a bad result if you're reaching deuce 6/6 games. Goes to show that 1) your opponent is playing at your level, or 2) you're not truly at the level you think you should be to mop up your opponent. You're simply not giving credit where credit is due.
 
A Summary of Comments from Proponents of No Ad Scoring for Doubles Tennis

No Ad Scoring = Shorter games, sets and matches

No Ad Scoring = Players have less time to figure out ways to succeed so they have to "Think" more about what they are doing

No Ad Scoring = More critical points reduces the impact of randomness

No Ad Scoring = Expediency declaring a winner

No Ad Scoring = Enables the Receiving Team to choose the stronger partner to receive the Game Deciding Point which can mitigate the servers advantage to some degree

No Ad Scoring = The tennis version of the soccer shoot-out

No Ad Scoring = Gives players much greater opportunity to play many more players over the journey

No Ad Scoring = More breaks between matches, giving players more time to reflect on their play and more opportunities to experiment with their game sooner

No Ad Scoring = Forces you to dominate a game to assure victory. Winning points at 40-15 and 40-30 becomes much more important. You don’t want to leave holding your serve down to a sudden death point if you can help it

No Ad Scoring = An attempt 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

No Ad Scoring = Doesn't really change anything. All other things being equal, the best player will still win more often than not

No Ad Scoring = For Mixed Doubles the Deciding Game Point is played gender to gender

No Ad Scoring = You have up to 40-40 to win by two points. No ad accelerates the time to get to the "big" point (ad in, ad out) and increases its importance as it's now win or lose for both players

No Ad Scoring = Is not luck: it is grit, smart decisions and better play; unless, of course, you lose sudden-death points on net cord winners or crazy framed drop shots

No Ad Scoring = Ideal for time-limited matches and when conditions are brutal

No Ad Scoring = Reduces extra pressure taken on by the ad court returner and server

No Ad Scoring = More beneficial for the mental game to practice and prepare for league/tournament match situations

No Ad Scoring = A single point showdown against the opponents best player is an excellent test of nerves

No Ad Scoring = Its good for the game of doubles tennis!
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
A Summary of Comments from Proponents of No Ad Scoring for Doubles Tennis
I don't think you know what summary means.

Rather than take that mess line by line, let's cover the most important items. You're suggesting several things that aren't accurate. Namely that "randomness" is changed by reducing the number of points. It's likely that there's no change, but in truth *less* points would increase that possibility. Further, you can't claim all these supposed benefits, and suggest that "(it) doesn't really change anything". There's more, but I should've been smarter than taking this bait already.
 
I don't think you know what summary means.

Rather than take that mess line by line, let's cover the most important items. You're suggesting several things that aren't accurate. Namely that "randomness" is changed by reducing the number of points. It's likely that there's no change, but in truth *less* points would increase that possibility. Further, you can't claim all these supposed benefits, and suggest that "(it) doesn't really change anything". There's more, but I should've been smarter than taking this bait already.
Perhaps you are correct ShaunS insofar as you "don't think". Summary is a brief statement or account of the main points of something. While you may not think my summary is brief, it is comprised of the main points posted by proponents of no ad scoring in this 3 page thread and my summary did not take up 3 pages. Stop while you're ahead... don't take the bait and respond unless you want to offer constructive comments.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
See the great thing about summaries is that they don't repeat the same points over and over and over and over and over...

It's shorter:
No Ad Scoring = Shorter games, sets and matches
No Ad Scoring = Expediency declaring a winner
No Ad Scoring = Gives players much greater opportunity to play many more players over the journey
No Ad Scoring = You have up to 40-40 to win by two points. No ad accelerates the time to get to the "big" point (ad in, ad out) and increases its importance as it's now win or lose for both players
No Ad Scoring = Ideal for time-limited matches and when conditions are brutal
---

don't take the bait and respond unless you want to offer constructive comments.
I'm under no obligation to tell you why no ad scoring is better. However I did, accurately, state why some claims were objectively false and others were contradictory. Feel free to let me know why I'm wrong, guy who registered an account exclusively for this purpose.
 
See the great thing about summaries is that they don't repeat the same points over and over and over and over and over...

It's shorter:





---


I'm under no obligation to tell you why no ad scoring is better. However I did, accurately, state why some claims were objectively false and others were contradictory. Feel free to let me know why I'm wrong, guy who registered an account exclusively for this purpose.
---

That was both constructive and instructive. Thanks!
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
In any match I play if I have a choice I prefer Ad scoring, 2 or of 3 sets. I concede that there are situations where it should be used: rec tennis, weather delays, etc, but it is not a one size fits all solution for the sport and should be avoided for high level JR and Pro tennis.

Tennis scoring is based on three's and winning by 2. Like baseball or golf, it was not set up to be a timed event so for many people and especially TV, this is a struggle because they can't plan a match around a specific timeframe. It was set up this way because it was at first a recreational activity, mostly for the wealthy, and not something played on any kind of professional level. Now the sport is mainstream, and there are attempts to bring in more casual fans and JR's but no one can wrap their head around the scoring or the time it takes.

For the scoring, a set is based on the concept that you will be given at minimum 3 chances to serve in a set. 3 is an odd number, and its the smallest number next to one to produce an accurate way of determining a winner. Its why you have 3 outs in baseball, determined over 9 innings (3x3). In tennis, a game requires you to win at minimum 4 points, with 2 points being in a row. Anyone can win 1 point by chance (net Court, mishit, random error), but 2 points makes the game more difficult. And its this difficulty that makes people love the game. If it is made easier by just winning one point, then this makes chance more of a factor. It affects point play, lead building, and general strategy, which makes the development of the sport more intricate. I know I feel a lot stronger and more confident if I come from behind in a game, and only just relieved if I happen to win a no-ad point. No-Ad favors certain game styles and players, and makes good defensive tennis obsolete. No-Ad is like making a 2-3 count in baseball the end all be all; baseball would be a different game. Or playing fast four is like playing 6 innings instead of 9. It shortens the game, but its not a good way of determining a champion. A lot more drama is built up in a long back and forth game then in one No ad point.

For an athlete, if chance is a factor why bother competing? And for professional athletes, if there is a random chance an opponent can win without working as hard, then why go out at all? Federer beat Nishioka last night 6-2 6-2 6-4. But Nishioka would have won 6 games under no-ad that he lost, that makes a big difference in a match like that. Could be an extra set for Fed? It gives a lessor player a chance, no doubt. Vegas of course would love this, and its only a coincidence that betting agencies have their money hands in tennis finally, so doesn't surprise me this gets pushed in things like the recent Davis Cup changes.

Additionally 10 pt breakers for the 3rd I think make winning a set a wash. Whats the point of winning the first set, or holding a lead if your just going to play a breaker. I think it would be smarter to play a 10pt breaker for the first set, and play out the other two, if time is really a factor.

Now, for sub 5.0 USTA rec leagues, I get it. And I think most of you do as well. I don't love it, but you only have an hour out there sometimes, its not the US open, there is no money at stake, and the club wants to turn courts. Fine, I'll play no-ad. I saw two 3.5 ladies play a singles match from 7.45a till 11.30a at districts, moon balling back and forth. Totally concede no-ad/10pt breakers for this kind of stuff. But I am totally against it for high level tournaments, college and pro matches. And for Jr tennis its terrible for any high level competition. I think it can make the game frustrating for a good player while making it easier for another player who may not be working as hard; so its a lose lose. The player that doesn't work as hard continues not to, and the good player walks away. And we wonder why so many kids go to other sports like Lacrosse.
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I'm playing in a doubles Calcutta and the rules are that you play first deuce traditional and then second deuce as a sudden death point (receivers choice of side). I think that is a pretty good compromise system.
I played a social set this morning where the first 2 games took 30 minutes due to multiple deuces. Not sure that is good for anything but extra exercise.

1-ad scoring is probably better than endless ad and no-ad.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I'm playing in a doubles Calcutta and the rules are that you play first deuce traditional and then second deuce as a sudden death point (receivers choice of side). I think that is a pretty good compromise system.
I played a social set this morning where the first 2 games took 30 minutes due to multiple deuces. Not sure that is good for anything but extra exercise.

1-ad scoring is probably better than endless ad and no-ad.
I think that is a great system. However, I think for Pro. Tennis they could play 3 Deuce points (including the first 40-40) before playing the Deciding Point! That means they would play a maximum of Seven more points after the first 40-40. Ties in pretty well with the other numbers.
 

rnitz

New User
In any match I play if I have a choice I prefer Ad scoring, 2 or of 3 sets. I concede that there are situations where it should be used: rec tennis, weather delays, etc, but it is not a one size fits all solution for the sport and should be avoided for high level JR and Pro tennis.

Tennis scoring is based on three's and winning by 2. Like baseball or golf, it was not set up to be a timed event so for many people and especially TV, this is a struggle because they can't plan a match around a specific timeframe. It was set up this way because it was at first a recreational activity, mostly for the wealthy, and not something played on any kind of professional level. Now the sport is mainstream, and there are attempts to bring in more casual fans and JR's but no one can wrap their head around the scoring or the time it takes.

For the scoring, a set is based on the concept that you will be given at minimum 3 chances to serve in a set. 3 is an odd number, and its the smallest number next to one to produce an accurate way of determining a winner. Its why you have 3 outs in baseball, determined over 9 innings (3x3). In tennis, a game requires you to win at minimum 4 points, with 2 points being in a row. Anyone can win 1 point by chance (net Court, mishit, random error), but 2 points makes the game more difficult. And its this difficulty that makes people love the game. If it is made easier by just winning one point, then this makes chance more of a factor. It affects point play, lead building, and general strategy, which makes the development of the sport more intricate. I know I feel a lot stronger and more confident if I come from behind in a game, and only just relieved if I happen to win a no-ad point. No-Ad favors certain game styles and players, and makes good defensive tennis obsolete. No-Ad is like making a 2-3 count in baseball the end all be all; baseball would be a different game. Or playing fast four is like playing 6 innings instead of 9. It shortens the game, but its not a good way of determining a champion. A lot more drama is built up in a long back and forth game then in one No ad point.

For an athlete, if chance is a factor why bother competing? And for professional athletes, if there is a random chance an opponent can win without working as hard, then why go out at all? Federer beat Nishioka last night 6-2 6-2 6-4. But Nishioka would have won 6 games under no-ad that he lost, that makes a big difference in a match like that. Could be an extra set for Fed? It gives a lessor player a chance, no doubt. Vegas of course would love this, and its only a coincidence that betting agencies have their money hands in tennis finally, so doesn't surprise me this gets pushed in things like the recent Davis Cup changes.

Additionally 10 pt breakers for the 3rd I think make winning a set a wash. Whats the point of winning the first set, or holding a lead if your just going to play a breaker. I think it would be smarter to play a 10pt breaker for the first set, and play out the other two, if time is really a factor.

Now, for sub 5.0 USTA rec leagues, I get it. And I think most of you do as well. I don't love it, but you only have an hour out there sometimes, its not the US open, there is no money at stake, and the club wants to turn courts. Fine, I'll play no-ad. I saw two 3.5 ladies play a singles match from 7.45a till 11.30a at districts, moon balling back and forth. Totally concede no-ad/10pt breakers for this kind of stuff. But I am totally against it for high level tournaments, college and pro matches. And for Jr tennis its terrible for any high level competition. I think it can make the game frustrating for a good player while making it easier for another player who may not be working as hard; so its a lose lose. The player that doesn't work as hard continues not to, and the good player walks away. And we wonder why so many kids go to other sports like Lacrosse.
Tl;dr
You should try no ad commenting. Gets you to the key point quickly. Gets rid of long inconsequential points. Makes you better at pressure-filled responses (and fast). Try it, you'll like it (as well the people that read/play against you). :)
 

jhupper

Rookie
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.
A loss is a loss. I agree with others on this you lost the points, your opponent didn't, That's the name of the game. If you miss by an inch you still missed, and apparently when it got to big points it happened more frequently than your opponent.

In terms of loosing by only 6 points over an entire match..... i think I'd feel more sore if I was Mahut who actually won more points than Isner and lost in 2010. And that's his livelihood.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Tl;dr
You should try no ad commenting. Gets you to the key point quickly. Gets rid of long inconsequential points. Makes you better at pressure-filled responses (and fast). Try it, you'll like it (as well the people that read/play against you). :)
Are you a millennial? I get that age group doesn’t like to read for more then 10 seconds

Well, doesn’t matter. As I said, regular scoring is for advanced play and No-Ad for beginners and rec. leagues, I’ll stick to the Ad scoring approach in what I write as well.

But that’s for the advice [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
regular scoring is for advanced play and No-Ad for beginners and rec. leagues
I used to be critical of No-Ad scoring but I no longer share your view.

No-Ad scoring is a great tool for developing elite players. It teaches them to focus at critical times. It also presents them with many opportunities to evaluate "Risk -vs- Reward" decision making in pressure situations. These skill are very valuable in match play where often there are no second chances.
 

jhupper

Rookie
I used to be critical of No-Ad scoring but I no longer share your view.

No-Ad scoring is a great tool for developing elite players. It teaches them to focus at critical times. It also presents them with many opportunities to evaluate "Risk -vs- Reward" decision making in pressure situations. These skill are very valuable in match play where often there are no second chances.
Couldn't agree more. Mental strength and good strategic play will no doubt benefit from such sudden death scenario. As the balance tips from more losses to more wins..... Then the confidence comes.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
I used to be critical of No-Ad scoring but I no longer share your view.

No-Ad scoring is a great tool for developing elite players. It teaches them to focus at critical times. It also presents them with many opportunities to evaluate "Risk -vs- Reward" decision making in pressure situations. These skill are very valuable in match play where often there are no second chances.
Respectfully, I agree we disagree on this.

I actually had that mindset (no-ad could be helpful) when they switched college tennis scoring, but the overwhelming concern from coaches and players had me looking at it more critically. A few problems I have encountered with the points you bring up:
-No ad was implemented to "speed up" the game, allow for faster match play
-it has furthermore been implemented to potentially "attract" more players to the sport, during a time when Jr participation has declined significantly. It is thought it is Easier to master, understand and win for a Jr. Player. Easy to pick up is easy to put down
-it produces more "chance" in outcomes, those creating parity. This is important because it takes the champion out of the sport and replaces it with a broader group. It is believed this can attract more fans and for Gambling is definitely more attractive (I encourage you to look at the increase of the gambling industry in tennis. They are supplementing the ITF and USTA now, so they have started to have more say in what they want to see). In light of writing too much here I won't get into it further...
-Lastly, it was thought to create drama for the casual fan watching, not the players. Thus, attracting more fans.

So, development of elite players was never in the selling points of the system. And statistically is inaccurate when you look at the success of American players over the last 20 years.

The USA Jr. and college system have been the primary guinea pigs for this implementation. For Jr's it started in the late 80's, and then really was implemented in the 90's when it was believed we needed to follow a Swedish model for Jr' development (Swede's dominated the pro's in the early 90's). Problem is, Sweden tinkered around with their Jr system and I think its been since the early 90's that they actually had a player in the top 50. Likewise, you see a drop in American players in the top 100 from the early 90's till now (46-8). Again, won't get into stats but encourage you to just take a look at the amount of American players in pro tennis circa late 80's/90's and now.

College has gone in and out of No-Ad. They tried it off and on in the 70's and 80's when Jimmy Van Alen, the creator of it, was pushing no-ad and tiebreaks in pro tennis as a way to speed up the game (and as a promoter of tennis felt it would garner more fans, thus money). They finally went to No-Ad a few years ago, implemented by the ITA even with a negative vote from coaches (70% voted against it). Van Alen came up with tiebreaks, which were implemented in grand slams at the advent of the open era. Van Allen was the son of wealthy parents and involved in tennis his whole life profiting from tournaments and his positions. He was instrumental in the rebuilding of the Newport Casino and ITF Hall of fame located there. Here is a link to an interesting article on the development of the system. In summary he believed the matches were too long, and felt this type of scoring would add more drama for the fan. (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/jun/19/wimbledon2005.wimbledon4)

Note, Europe and S. American players play ITF tournaments, which are full 2/3 sets and ad scoring, this has never changed. France has more 10 ten players then the US, and examining their Jr system it is promoted by UTR and match play based on UTR improvement across ages, which I think is interesting.

So, whats the difference? Could be argued they just like it more in those places, or the coaching is better, or maybe there are more distractions here in the US. Maybe the fall of the Soviet Union opened up tennis to more players? However, it can't be denied that the scoring in the US changed and for Europe and S. America it didn't. And now, tennis struggles to even get Jr's into the game, even with the scoring. College tennis is infiltrated by International players, 75% in D-1, and American Jr' players don't even try for it anymore. The dream is squashed, and the USTA just eliminated the All-American tournament they would have with the US Open. American mens tennis hasn't had a champion since Roddick won the US open, and women's tennis is nothing without the Williams Sisters over the years.

Back to your points on No-Ad: For focus it certainly can cause a player to focus intently on one point, but doesn't teach constant focus needed to be successful in the pro game. Thus, why you see American Jr players struggle with leads, point construction, and have constant up's and down's in matches. And, because of singular point focus rewards a more A-D-D approach when it comes to concentration, rewarding fluke point wins and certain game styles that aren't successful in pro tennis. It also can be frustrating for a player causing them to feel like they are putting in a lot of work for nothing, so lacking a championship mentality (hence less American players even going into college tennis)

Pressure situations are created from the battle, holding leads, keeping leads. One point just makes it more of a fluke, and actually eliminates the pressure. Nothing more pressure orientated then trying to serve to stay in a match in a multi deuce battle. Winning it on the first point is easy, quick, fun for fans, sucks for the players. It causes some players to go from aggressive to conservative games, and players who have push, defensive games can have an advantage over the stronger aggressive play (taught in the US), hence the lack of success of American players in college.

And you are correct, there are no second chances, so this creates less champions. There would be no Federer, no Nadal, no Serena. More parity. Some might like that, some would not.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
@Nacho, I really enjoyed reading your post.

1/ Imo, the reason for the failure of the US to produce Champion players over the past decade or so is primarily because junior development is conducted on Hard Courts. Most coaching professionals agree that the best surface to develop future tennis champions on is Red Clay. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray all share one important thing in common. They played a lot of their junior tennis on Red Clay.

2/ For sure, the No-Ad system was introduced to attract more people to playing the sport and it has probably succeeded in that endeavour, especially considering many people are time poor these days.

3/ The No-Ad system does make it a lot more exciting for the specatators, especially the casual spectators. I don't see a problem with that because the sport needs spectators. Without them, there is no money. Without money, no Professionalism. And without Professionalism, other sports will attract the best athletes.

4/ Regardless on any scoring system, the best players will still rise to the top and dominate the sport over a longer period of time. Guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic would still be dominating the Men's game, and Serena the Women's game, regardless of the scoring formats being used. They all still have to play and win the points, the games, the matches, the Titles, etc.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Thanks @Karma Tennis, and for keeping it civil

1/ Imo, the reason for the failure of the US to produce Champion players over the past decade or so is primarily because junior development is conducted on Hard Courts. Most coaching professionals agree that the best surface to develop future tennis champions on is Red Clay. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray all share one important thing in common. They played a lot of their junior tennis on Red Clay.
I have heard this, and it has been put forth a bunch by Patrick McEnroe and Brad Gilbert when asked. I have a ton of respect for both, but they both have stake/employment with the powers that be, and I think it would be bad for business if they stated other things. And, this statement releases accountability on the USTA and their poor development programs (which P McEnroe in particular has dogs in the fight). However, their theory is that red clay produces an all around game and thus favors those players. 60's, 70's and 80's wasn't any different, and the ratio of American players to the rest of the world was dramatically higher, so I don't think it was a sudden discovery of red clay. Sampras and Aggasi for instance grew up on Hard Courts, wasn't the difference in their matches. I will credit John McEnroe who has brought up more numerous issues then just the surface

2/ For sure, the No-Ad system was introduced to attract more people to playing the sport and it has probably succeeded in that endeavour, especially considering many people are time poor these days.
Its hard to tell since No-Ad isn't implemented in pro tennis except doubles. The sport is much more popular in Europe, S. America and now Asia, all of which play regular scoring. Those fans are coming in droves. US, outside of the US Open which attracts a world audience, the spectator numbers would dictate otherwise. I have watch a ton of matches that look like there are 50 people in the stands, its sort of depressing. And no one shows up for doubles matches anymore, but if you have some stats to cite I am open to this

3/ The No-Ad system does make it a lot more exciting for the specatators, especially the casual spectators. I don't see a problem with that because the sport needs spectators. Without them, there is no money. Without money, no Professionalism. And without Professionalism, other sports will attract the best athletes.
With no-ad not implemented on any professional level this really can't be argued. College it remains to be seen, the powers that support it (ITA, USTA) of course say it has, but the data is sparse. I go to a ton of college tennis matches, and the overwhelming comments from people are that that the doubles is way to short, and that they would like to see matches finished. For players and coaches there is still a desire to play ad scoring, but its been rammed down their throat so they don't say anything about it any more except off to the side.

4/ Regardless on any scoring system, the best players will still rise to the top and dominate the sport over a longer period of time. Guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic would still be dominating the Men's game, and Serena the Women's game, regardless of the scoring formats being used. They all still have to play and win the points, the games, the matches, the Titles, etc.
Agreed it could, but that's a broad approach without much data to back it up because they don't play it. I think all of them would say that No-Ad would change the record books and they may not have the success they had under the system they have used. Have 8 Wimbledon titles and the all time record, or only 4 under no ad; I am sure Federer would take the 8. The Roddick/Federer final would have been a win for Roddick based on No-Ad Scoring. But remember, they don't play no-ad, so its hard to measure. But Steve Johnson has said he would not have been undefeated in college tennis if No-Ad was around, and I believe him.

The Williams sisters merged from Jr-pro tennis early, so they escaped the hands of the USTA. Their father was their primary inspiration and kept them away from any abbreviated tinkering. Even the American players that make it nowadays do it with coach/parents keeping them away from USA Jr. and college tennis.

I know it is difficult to change minds, and its a passionate topic. I have gone back and forth on it, and I really like the scoring for rec tennis. It definitely helps some of these leagues happen, and makes the sport accessible to all kinds of players so I don't rip into it. But, I also see how its not a one size fits all approach. I do favor tiebreaks, and tiebreaks for 5th sets, but more for the health of the players. I have to admit I was glued to the TV for the Isner/Anderson match and can't imagine more drama then that. Its also not a simple conversation there is a lot involved in the discussion and a lot of players. I would encourage you to look at some of the money going into the ITF, USTA, and ITA; the battles between the ITF and USTA for control of American and world tennis, the intricacies of the TV contracts and money for US Open TV rights, and the unionization of the WTA and ATP. All these things are the driving forces behind scoring changes, and not what is pitched (fan friendly, player development, etc). It's probably more of my angst with it then anything else
 

rnitz

New User
Are you a millennial? I get that age group doesn’t like to read for more then 10 seconds

Well, doesn’t matter. As I said, regular scoring is for advanced play and No-Ad for beginners and rec. leagues, I’ll stick to the Ad scoring approach in what I write as well.

But that’s for the advice [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, just yanking your chain ;) I'm an aging 4.5 player (age 60, doubles only) still playing a couple of times a week. We switched to no-ad for our mid-week evening matches as it gets us to the bar on time after the match. It's an interesting change in strategy on the deciding points as unforced errors are painful, so most players play more conservatively which opens up the opportunity for more aggressive poaching. I can see why traditionalists will hate it, but the pros use it for doubles and it does add an interesting wrinkle to the game.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Ah, just yanking your chain ;) I'm an aging 4.5 player (age 60, doubles only) still playing a couple of times a week. We switched to no-ad for our mid-week evening matches as it gets us to the bar on time after the match. It's an interesting change in strategy on the deciding points as unforced errors are painful, so most players play more conservatively which opens up the opportunity for more aggressive poaching. I can see why traditionalists will hate it, but the pros use it for doubles and it does add an interesting wrinkle to the game.
No worries, all in good fun. I get No-Ad for time constraints and rec tennis, just think it should stay out of pro's and Jr. development. Funny you bring up pro-doubles, one of the big issues the ATP and ITF have it they are trying to make doubles more interesting for people to watch. McEnroe has been quoted as saying the abbreviated scoring isn't helping. No one watches it anymore, whether it can be attributed to abbreviated scoring I am not 100%, but certainly its a factor. Probably because the big names hardly play it, but there is a reason they don't and certainly tons of parity in those events.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
No worries, all in good fun. I get No-Ad for time constraints and rec tennis, just think it should stay out of pro's and Jr. development. Funny you bring up pro-doubles, one of the big issues the ATP and ITF have it they are trying to make doubles more interesting for people to watch. McEnroe has been quoted as saying the abbreviated scoring isn't helping. No one watches it anymore, whether it can be attributed to abbreviated scoring I am not 100%, but certainly its a factor. Probably because the big names hardly play it, but there is a reason they don't and certainly tons of parity in those events.
I wouldn't listen to anything McEnroe has to say about the average tennis player or fan, as he has no clue.
No rec match should have 20 deuce, 15 min games. It's a good way to ruin someone's shoulder.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
I hope tennis goes to no let and no ad. So many advantages to both.
yea, I agree, lets lower the bar even more
What is the logic in playing two when the serve barely grazes the net, but letting the point stand if someone's FH slams into the net and rolls over for a winner during a rally?
I also hate it when my opponent swears my ace grazed the net. It's a dirty tactic that should be eliminated by playing no let, as they do in college.

At the pro level with their many linesmen, Hawkeye and sensors, they can play with different rules but at the rec level, we should follow the college rules of no let, no ad since we both have none of the resources the pro tour has.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nacho

Hall of Fame
What is the logic in playing two when the serve barely grazes the net, but letting the point stand if someone's FH slams into the net and rolls over for a winner during a rally?
I also hate it when my opponent swears my ace grazed the net. It's a dirty tactic that should be eliminated by playing no let, as they do in college.

At the pro level with their many linesmen, Hawkeye and sensors, they can play with different rules but at the rec level, we should follow the college rules of no let, no ad since we both have none of the resources the pro tour has.
The purpose of the let with the serve is because the serve is the start of the point, and it is to take away an unfair advantage to the server. The returner is supposed to have a fair shot at the ball at least once. A let negates this opportunity, thats why it is in there, or was put in there originally by the creators of the game. When the point is already in play then the opportunity has ceased and anything goes.

For pro tennis, as you pointed out no need to adjust this. For JR's and college players, I think they should be striving to do what the pros do. Unfortunately in the mid nineties some coaches (in the SEC) complained in order to get more linesman at matches, but got this change instead. As you stated they claimed that kids were using this to negate aces, or servers were claiming it on big returns.

So the problem here is sportsmanship, and the solution is to alter the rules to fit the sportsmanship....interesting. I guess I differ on approach

Rec. tennis who cares. Makes some 3.5 players feel better about calls, sure. Again, Recreation tennis is a different beast. And in critical matches a USTA referee can be consulted.

I have to say that in 35 years of playing tennis at all levels, I can maybe count on one hand the times I have thought this might be an issue. And can't think of one occasion where it delayed or altered the match as the original thread indicates.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
I wouldn't listen to anything McEnroe has to say about the average tennis player or fan, as he has no clue.
No rec match should have 20 deuce, 15 min games. It's a good way to ruin someone's shoulder.
Why listen to anyone then? But, tennis and sport is filled with opinions, so you have to measure them all whether you agree or not.

And yes, Recreation tennis at some levels should have abbreviated scoring. But not all levels, should be determined by the leagues and tournament directors, its not a one size fits all approach.

And you can hurt your shoulder sitting at your desk typing all day....injuries are part of the journey
 

BGod

Legend
I agree on principle that no-ad scoring is laughable. It does make it easier for returners as they can just go ham on one point.

There are many problems with timed matches though, not least of which is playing lets. I just think if time is so crucial simply play tiebreak at 4-4.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
The purpose of the let with the serve is because the serve is the start of the point, and it is to take away an unfair advantage to the server. The returner is supposed to have a fair shot at the ball at least once
I played no let serving for a few years, and I'll tell you that I don't think the server got the advantage most of the time. The balls that stayed in tended to be weaker shots because of the net, so I'm not sure that it works out to being such a help.

it can be attributed to abbreviated scoring I am not 100%, but certainly its a factor. Probably because the big names hardly play it, but there is a reason they don't and certainly tons of parity in those events.
I've been clear about my feelings on no ad scoring, but I don't believe it's had any measurable impact on doubles viewership. Admittedly I haven't looked at any data on it, just a gut feel.

Did you actually create your account just to talk about the butchery of the game that is the no-ad scoring system?
Niche.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
I played no let serving for a few years, and I'll tell you that I don't think the server got the advantage most of the time. The balls that stayed in tended to be weaker shots because of the net, so I'm not sure that it works out to being such a help.


I've been clear about my feelings on no ad scoring, but I don't believe it's had any measurable impact on doubles viewership. Admittedly I haven't looked at any data on it, just a gut feel.


Niche.
Let cords: I hear you, it can go either way but its just why the rule was set up that way, to give the returner a clean chance at the ball. I am ok with it, doesn't happen that much or speed up the game. Its more of a sportsmanship issue with people calling lets but I am more inclined to deal with that sort of problem differently then changing rules.

The thing that might be worth researching is the amount of parity that exists in doubles. What I have noticed is that since the switch to no-ad there are more random champions in doubles with much more parity in players. Additionally, doubles used to be something everyone would play, but the top guys stay away from it. The game demands haven't changed, but it feels like more of an afterthought to play, or something they play when they are older. Besides grand slams it gets very little attention as well. Yes, would be interesting to look at before and after data, but I do know there is concern amongst tournament directors and the ATP about the viewership of doubles and the lack of interest in general.
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
There's no flaw in No-Ad scoring. It treats both server and returner the same. The server may have the advantage of first strike but the advantage is supposedly neutralized by allowing the returner to choose which court to return from.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
yea, I agree, lets lower the bar even more
Or rather simplifying the system that was unnecessarily complex to begin.

While I understand you believe tennis is perfect as is, I don't believe any sport is perfect and couldn't use adjustment from time to time. Early on in the game's development there was constant adjustment. But recently, despite significant changes in equipment, athletic training, courts surfaces and spectator lifestyle, tennis has done nothing to improve itself.

Golf is doing a major overhaul in its rules to make it more accessible to today's recreational player. They are simplifying a lot of the rule book and taking away some unnecessarily complicated systems. Tennis should not consider itself immune to that sort of approach.

And as a spectator I'd really appreciate the addition of a little more randomness in the sport. Some of the greatest moments in sports were the flukiest. In the end professional sport is theater and more dramatic the better.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
And you can hurt your shoulder sitting at your desk typing all day....injuries are part of the journey
No doubt. One of the key reasons I play tennis is for the exercise. If hitting a few more balls in a long game is doing damage to your body then you probably have poor mechanics, and it's inevitably going to be a problem in the future. I agree that it might make sense in the age leagues to look at shortening points where wear/tear on the body is a more common issue.

And as a spectator I'd really appreciate the addition of a little more randomness in the sport. Some of the greatest moments in sports were the flukiest. In the end professional sport is theater and more dramatic the better.
I know that some fans definitely feel this way, and I think for the casual fan it's probably doubly so. [Referring back to the doubles discussion - it's hard to appreciate the strategy being executed versus the clarity of a baseline rally.] However, as the competitor the last thing I want is more randomness to the game. I don't want to win on flukes, and I definitely don't want to lose on them.

But recently, despite significant changes in equipment, athletic training, courts surfaces and spectator lifestyle, tennis has done nothing to improve itself.
While we could debate whether the changes have been positive or not, I think it's inaccurate to suggest they aren't trying. Whether it's seeding, serve clocks, scoring formats, or what have you there have been attempts. Usually though the changes are met with strong disapproval so there's little that sticks.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
No doubt. One of the key reasons I play tennis is for the exercise. If hitting a few more balls in a long game is doing damage to your body then you probably have poor mechanics, and it's inevitably going to be a problem in the future. I agree that it might make sense in the age leagues to look at shortening points where wear/tear on the body is a more common issue.
I think we are in agreement here. My concern is the approach to tennis in an all encompassing fashion, rather then taking each segment one by one. So in other words, what is good for adult rec tennis is not good for Adult high level tournament tennis, or pro tennis for that matter. I certainly can see there being adjustments for different levels and circumstances, so I think we are saying the same thing. Just don't love blanket statements one size fits all statements on the game. Many here believe that what they see on TV should be treated the same as what they play on Wednesday nights at their local park.
 

davced1

Hall of Fame
I think I won all the no ads today. I just played offensive and it worked today. Still not a fan. Played proper sets last weekend and it just felt better mentally. I feel it is easier to accept when my opponent wins regular games because then there is no doubt they were better in that game. It doesn't affect me mentally as much as no ads slipping the wrong way.

I do understand the time aspect of it but that's about it.
 
Last edited:

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Or rather simplifying the system that was unnecessarily complex to begin.

While I understand you believe tennis is perfect as is, I don't believe any sport is perfect and couldn't use adjustment from time to time. Early on in the game's development there was constant adjustment. But recently, despite significant changes in equipment, athletic training, courts surfaces and spectator lifestyle, tennis has done nothing to improve itself.

Golf is doing a major overhaul in its rules to make it more accessible to today's recreational player. They are simplifying a lot of the rule book and taking away some unnecessarily complicated systems. Tennis should not consider itself immune to that sort of approach.

And as a spectator I'd really appreciate the addition of a little more randomness in the sport. Some of the greatest moments in sports were the flukiest. In the end professional sport is theater and more dramatic the better.
Really that complex? Seems pretty simple, and we have made it complex with rules, scoring different levels. I amazed at the amount of people that ask basic questions about how to even get back into tennis on here, or how to understand the USTA site.

Tennis has been around for a long time as it is(140 plus years), and its been over the last 30 years that people have wanted to change it. Why? No-ad creates more Parity. The house can win more often, so good for gambling. No-Ad is a better sell to TV networks to cover tennis as they want to fit it in certain time periods. But for the fan? It loses drama, and for the players it no longer rewards hard work.

However, I do agree with you that changing the game to keep recreational players engaged is fine, if it works. Problem is there are many different levels of tennis players, and what works for beginners and intermediate players doesn't and shouldn't work for High level adult tournaments and Pro play. The two parts of the sport are very different and should not be mixed and matched. And golf has made few changes to its pro game, and the changes over the next year (taking affect in 2019) are small compared changing tennis scoring. If Golf were to say: lets speed up the game by making pro's hit from the ladies t's, then that would be a change comparable to changing pro scoring to No-ad. But most of their changes address etiquette topics (dropping balls in relief, searching for balls, etc..). These Golf rule changes help speed up the recreational game...

I do think you and I see pro tournament tennis differently. I like a champion. I like to see who the best is, and if they can be dethroned. I think a lot of people do thats why there are so many threads on Federer, Nadal, and Serena on this site. People want to know who the champion is and how they got there. If anyone can be a champion it signifies that the sport lacks difficulty or is manipulated. But I get you an others might see this differently.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I do think you and I see pro tournament tennis differently. I like a champion. I like to see who the best is, and if they can be dethroned. I think a lot of people do thats why there are so many threads on Federer, Nadal, and Serena on this site. People want to know who the champion is and how they got there. If anyone can be a champion it signifies that the sport lacks difficulty or is manipulated. But I get you an others might see this differently.
Yes I get where you are coming from. Some people love dynasties and domination in sports. Some, like myself, love the plucky underdog that rides a wave of good breaks and being in the zone to a championship. Tennis has so few "feel good" stories. The best guys almost always win which makes the drama so much less until the best guys play each other.

So we'll have to agree to disagree. All I know is tennis should try to figure out what most spectators are looking for and try to pander to them. It's an entertainment industry and if you aren't entertaining enough people they will spend their money elsewhere.

For rec players, high or low level, it doesn't matter what they change. As long as the basic point structure is maintained it's basically the same game requiring the same skill set.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Yes I get where you are coming from. Some people love dynasties and domination in sports. Some, like myself, love the plucky underdog that rides a wave of good breaks and being in the zone to a championship. Tennis has so few "feel good" stories. The best guys almost always win which makes the drama so much less until the best guys play each other.

So we'll have to agree to disagree. All I know is tennis should try to figure out what most spectators are looking for and try to pander to them. It's an entertainment industry and if you aren't entertaining enough people they will spend their money elsewhere.

For rec players, high or low level, it doesn't matter what they change. As long as the basic point structure is maintained it's basically the same game requiring the same skill set.
I do like when the underdog becomes a champion, but I like it because I know how hard it is and not because it is someone random. For Millman to beat Federer the other day was just awesome, and difficult. But if this sort of thing happened all the time then there would be no Federer to defeat. It would not be an achievement

Having attended many a pro tournaments I believe most spectators like to wander court to court, see different matches, get a feel of what matches are interesting and maybe stay at those. Maybe the match is interesting because of the matchup, or there is an up and coming player, or maybe the match is close and every point is a battle. "Hey, Tiafoe is playing Shapapolav and they are 5-5 in the second, lets go watch that match"...I don't think people watch just one match unless they are a fan of the player, and I don't think No-Ad scoring is something that drives people to watch tennis live. Maybe on TV, but I think if TV took on a similar approach early on in tournaments, it might make it more interesting. Like a Red Zone approach to a tennis tournament. I bet they would get more interest then changing the scoring. Problem in tennis is some matches are just bad, uninteresting, and then long on top of that. The scoring will do nothing for these matches, its just the risk with following one match.

I have to say this US Open has been one of the most interesting Grand Slams to watch on TV. There have been some great matches, tough conditions for the players to battle, and some rising stars doing well. And I think ESPN has actually done a good job with its coverage of matches and switching to the most interesting matches early in the tournament . I have enjoyed using the ESPN + and switching between courts, so that has helped me find the match worth watching.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Maybe on TV, but I think if TV took on a similar approach early on in tournaments, it might make it more interesting. Like a Red Zone approach to a tennis tournament.
I think they are trending that way in early rounds. I've seen split screen and switching to more compelling matches from the ESPN crews. Problem is, for quarterfinals on, its one match at a time so a Red Zone approach won't work. It's now Monday Night Football where there is only one game and if its dreary, people turn away.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
I think they are trending that way in early rounds. I've seen split screen and switching to more compelling matches from the ESPN crews. Problem is, for quarterfinals on, its one match at a time so a Red Zone approach won't work. It's now Monday Night Football where there is only one game and if its dreary, people turn away.
Yea, probably been fortunate they have had some good matches, but tennis can be pretty dual if the match is one sided or the points/games are moving too quickly without much battle
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Yea, probably been fortunate they have had some good matches, but tennis can be pretty dual if the match is one sided or the points/games are moving too quickly without much battle
I reckon any tennis match at the Pro Level is interesting to watch from an analytical point of view regardless of who is winning and by how much.

That is the beauty of this great sport. There is so much going on beneath the "obvious" stuff.

Of course, I love watching close matches. But I can appreciate the matches that aren't that close and learn a lot from them as well. The sport works on many different levels.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
I reckon any tennis match at the Pro Level is interesting to watch from an analytical point of view regardless of who is winning and by how much.

That is the beauty of this great sport. There is so much going on beneath the "obvious" stuff.

Of course, I love watching close matches. But I can appreciate the matches that aren't that close and learn a lot from them as well. The sport works on many different levels.
I hear ya, more speaking generally. I certainly find matches where players are struggling, or points are short just as compelling. There is so much to the game that most people love and don't even realize they do. I think I could write a book about appreciating a 6-0 match as much as a 7-6 match. I've seen and played some 6-0 or 6-1 matches that were as tough as one with a closer score. However, the non-tennis and casual fan is out for excitement, drinks, and tennis orientated stuff. Its why the No-ad junk gets pushed so much because it assumes fans want that sort of excitement and don't understand the game; I give more credit to most tennis fans and think this approach is trying to attract people who don't understand the sport. So, instead of teaching them to appreciate it we change the game for them
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Well I have to say after today’s match, thank goodness for no ad.

Played a tournament mixed doubles match best of 3 with a 10 point tiebreak in lieu of set 3. Lost the match 6-7 (12-14) , 6-7 (9-10). Took 2 hours with no ad scoring.

I think I’d still be on the court with full ad. I feel sorry for the winners as have to play later in the afternoon. That’s going to be a lot of tennis.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Well I have to say after today’s match, thank goodness for no ad.

Played a tournament mixed doubles match best of 3 with a 10 point tiebreak in lieu of set 3. Lost the match 6-7 (12-14) , 6-7 (9-10). Took 2 hours with no ad scoring.

I think I’d still be on the court with full ad. I feel sorry for the winners as have to play later in the afternoon. That’s going to be a lot of tennis.
With full ad you may have won the match....
 

Max G.

Legend
So, that is basically as close as it's possible for a match to get. And it still took only two hours.

That means the typical match is going to be a lot shorter than that.

No, I definitely think that's an argument in favor of playing with ad. 2 hours is a good match length, it shouldn't be the hard upper bound, should be like 75th percentile or something.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
With full ad you may have won the match....
Or not. None of the sudden death points favored one team and evened out. And a shorter match probably favored my less fit team.

All I know is 2 hours is a long time to be playing mixed dubs with your wife. So much chance of marital discord.
 

onehandbh

Legend
If it becomes no-ad, on deuce, who should get to pick the side the server serves to?

I think no-ad equalizes things between lefties and rightiea. Currently, lefties have a big advantage bc they get to serve to the ad side on important game pts.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Or not. None of the sudden death points favored one team and evened out. And a shorter match probably favored my less fit team.

All I know is 2 hours is a long time to be playing mixed dubs with your wife. So much chance of marital discord.
Yes, in that case for sure use no-ad;)
 
Top