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.
