NO TO THE NO-AD, YES TO THE NO-DEUCE

In the traditional scoring system in order to win a game the player has to win four points (15, 30, 40, game) unless the score is 'deuce' after six points where one player must win the next two points.

The no-ad scoring system means that in order to win a game it is always enough to win four points. (=the seventh point).

No-deuce system differs a little. When the game is at 40-all, the player who has won the last point has the advantage. By winning the advantage, he win the game. By losing it, the advantage immediately and directly goes to the opponent. (Every point is an advantage point and there is no 'deuce' at all!) This continues until either player has won two points in a row. Game to him.

I think the above suggestion is in a good way somewhere between the no-ad-rule and the traditional scoring system. It is closer the original spirit of tennis (no sudden death!). The trad system means that the game needs still two points after 40-all (or 4 or 6 or 8...). The no-ad only one. The no-deuce needs 1 or 2 or maybe 3 points. The game doesn't stick in the same game as in trad scoring.
 

haqq777

Legend
In the traditional scoring system in order to win a game the player has to win four points (15, 30, 40, game) unless the score is 'deuce' after six points where one player must win the next two points.

The no-ad scoring system means that in order to win a game it is always enough to win four points. (=the seventh point).

No-deuce system differs a little. When the game is at 40-all, the player who has won the last point has the advantage. By winning the advantage, he win the game. By losing it, the advantage immediately and directly goes to the opponent. (Every point is an advantage point and there is no 'deuce' at all!) This continues until either player has won two points in a row. Game to him.

I think the above suggestion is in a good way somewhere between the no-ad-rule and the traditional scoring system. It is closer the original spirit of tennis (no sudden death!). The trad system means that the game needs still two points after 40-all (or 4 or 6 or 8...). The no-ad only one. The no-deuce needs 1 or 2 or maybe 3 points. The game doesn't stick in the same game as in trad scoring.
No. Absolutely despise this. Played college tennis myself and regularly hit with college kids. College tennis has no ad scoring where whoever wins the point at 40-all wins the game. I would much rather stick to your regular service games, thank you. They also have a no let rule which I think is fine given the amount of unsportsmanlike stuff (unfortunately) that goes on at the college circuit.
 
I want to add a little. Compared to the trad system the no-deuce helps the returner. Let's think the game is 40-30 to the server. In the trad system returner have to win the near future points 3-0 or 4-1 and so on. It is difficult. But in the deuce system he needs only two points or 3-1 (or 4-2).
 

Robert Baratheon

Professional
In the traditional scoring system in order to win a game the player has to win four points (15, 30, 40, game) unless the score is 'deuce' after six points where one player must win the next two points.

The no-ad scoring system means that in order to win a game it is always enough to win four points. (=the seventh point).

No-deuce system differs a little. When the game is at 40-all, the player who has won the last point has the advantage. By winning the advantage, he win the game. By losing it, the advantage immediately and directly goes to the opponent. (Every point is an advantage point and there is no 'deuce' at all!) This continues until either player has won two points in a row. Game to him.

I think the above suggestion is in a good way somewhere between the no-ad-rule and the traditional scoring system. It is closer the original spirit of tennis (no sudden death!). The trad system means that the game needs still two points after 40-all (or 4 or 6 or 8...). The no-ad only one. The no-deuce needs 1 or 2 or maybe 3 points. The game doesn't stick in the same game as in trad scoring.
Markus I definitely like the "no-deuce" version better than the no-ad version.
Yet I would like to stick to the real version.
Still this is a really cool idea. I like the concept just not enough to implement it:p
 

Robert Baratheon

Professional
I want to add a little. Compared to the trad system the no-deuce helps the returner. Let's think the game is 40-30 to the server. In the trad system returner have to win the near future points 3-0 or 4-1 and so on. It is difficult. But in the deuce system he needs only two points or 3-1 (or 4-2).
This was the first thing that came to my mind but on further thought I thought it's not the case. It helps both the server and the returner the same way.
At 40-30 it helps the returner but at 30-40 it helps the server.
Edit: it basically rewards whoever was behind in the game and made it to deuce(the old deuce).
 
This was the first thing that came to my mind but on further thought I thought it's not the case. It helps both the server and the returner the same way.
At 40-30 it helps the returner but at 30-40 it helps the server.
Edit: it basically rewards whoever was behind in the game and made it to deuce(the old deuce).
We can of course think that it helps in the same way. But because it is much more difficult to break than hold the serve the same (absolute) help means more (relative) help for the returner. Probability to break increases but of course it cannot be the same with holding the serve. On the contrary it decreases the latter. 100% is max!
 
Last edited:

Robert Baratheon

Professional
We can of course think that it helps in the same way. But because it is much more difficult to break than hold the serve the same (absolute) help means more (relative) help for the returner. Probability to break increases but of course it cannot be the same with holding the serve.
Yeah that makes sense. I was wrong.
 

merwy

Legend
No. Absolutely despise this. Played college tennis myself and regularly hit with college kids. College tennis has no ad scoring where whoever wins the point at 40-all wins the game. I would much rather stick to your regular service games, thank you. They also have a no let rule which I think is fine given the amount of unsportsmanlike stuff (unfortunately) that goes on at the college circuit.
This is the only instance in which I think no-let is fine. But in professional tennis I don’t see why we should remove the let rule. Nobody wants to see an important point being decided by a serve that dribbles over the net or a let serve that can be put away by the returner for an easy winner. How much time do we lose anyway by those few let calls? Can’t be more than 3 minutes per match right?
 

haqq777

Legend
This is the only instance in which I think no-let is fine. But in professional tennis I don’t see why we should remove the let rule. Nobody wants to see an important point being decided by a serve that dribbles over the net or a let serve that can be put away by the returner for an easy winner. How much time do we lose anyway by those few let calls? Can’t be more than 3 minutes per match right?
Oh I agree with you. No disagreement there at all. Both no let, and no ad are not needed in professional tennis. I do particularly feel strongly about the no ad scoring, and think it is a step in the wrong direction. I'll also add that I found Next Gen scoring woeful (minus the self toweling idea, love that).
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
In the traditional scoring system in order to win a game the player has to win four points (15, 30, 40, game) unless the score is 'deuce' after six points where one player must win the next two points.

The no-ad scoring system means that in order to win a game it is always enough to win four points. (=the seventh point).

No-deuce system differs a little. When the game is at 40-all, the player who has won the last point has the advantage. By winning the advantage, he win the game. By losing it, the advantage immediately and directly goes to the opponent. (Every point is an advantage point and there is no 'deuce' at all!) This continues until either player has won two points in a row. Game to him.

I think the above suggestion is in a good way somewhere between the no-ad-rule and the traditional scoring system. It is closer the original spirit of tennis (no sudden death!). The trad system means that the game needs still two points after 40-all (or 4 or 6 or 8...). The no-ad only one. The no-deuce needs 1 or 2 or maybe 3 points. The game doesn't stick in the same game as in trad scoring.
as ridiculous as it sounded at first - that is actually not a bad idea at all....... (y)
 
Why should the 40-40 point be worth more than the 15-0 point? You can dislke no-ad but at least there's no logic error in it. No-deuce is just complete stupidity.
Did I understand, I don't know. But... You perhaps think that it is unfair to get the advantage although the points are 40-all, another player is leading although he hasn't gather any points more than his opponent.

If so.... you think that all the points, new and old, early and late are equal, the same worth. In reality they aren't. Everybody knows 'important points' although in mathematical sense they are always only one (1) point. I think it is not an injustice that the point from '30-40' to '40-40' is a little bit worthier than the 1st point of the game.
 

anarosevoli

New User
Did I understand, I don't know. But... You perhaps think that it is unfair to get the advantage although the points are 40-all, another player is leading although he hasn't gather any points more than his opponent.

If so.... you think that all the points, new and old, early and late are equal, the same worth. In reality they aren't. Everybody knows 'important points' although in mathematical sense they are always only one (1) point. I think it is not an injustice that the point from '30-40' to '40-40' is a little bit worthier than the 1st point of the game.
Firstly, it's just an illusion but you don't understnad it: It doesn't matter which point you take away from a player, the "important" point that he won or any other point from that game. You see: All points are worth the same.
I'm glad that you can at least understand that in tennis and also with no-ad rule all points are mathematically equal. In your debile scenario you want to destroy that equality too. Why?
EOD for me, that's just too ****in stupid. Try better, maybe you can invent some new crazy Monopoly rules lol.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
In the traditional scoring system in order to win a game the player has to win four points (15, 30, 40, game) unless the score is 'deuce' after six points where one player must win the next two points.

The no-ad scoring system means that in order to win a game it is always enough to win four points. (=the seventh point).

No-deuce system differs a little. When the game is at 40-all, the player who has won the last point has the advantage. By winning the advantage, he win the game. By losing it, the advantage immediately and directly goes to the opponent. (Every point is an advantage point and there is no 'deuce' at all!) This continues until either player has won two points in a row. Game to him.

I think the above suggestion is in a good way somewhere between the no-ad-rule and the traditional scoring system. It is closer the original spirit of tennis (no sudden death!). The trad system means that the game needs still two points after 40-all (or 4 or 6 or 8...). The no-ad only one. The no-deuce needs 1 or 2 or maybe 3 points. The game doesn't stick in the same game as in trad scoring.
I can't follow the logic. How is your no deuce system scoring. You get to 30 all, then someone gets 40. What happens next?
 
I can't follow the logic. How is your no deuce system scoring. You get to 30 all, then someone gets 40. What happens next?
The returner can be Rafa and the server Stefa in our example. Let's suppose that Rafa gets the fifth point: 30-40. Also the following point goes to Rafa: Game to Rafa. It was a normal game. If Stefa wins the sixth point: (40-40 and) ad to him. Furthermore Stefa wins: Game to him.

If Rafa would have won the seventh point at 40-40 the score would be still 40-40 but ad to Rafa. One point and game to Rafa.

In a nutshell: After the score 30-all the player who wins two points in a row wins a game.
 

speedysteve

Legend
We played no net cord (that has now changed back) and no deuce or 'deciding point' as it's called in our fast four singles club morning. If there's lots of opponents we swap after first to 4.
It's fast and snappy. Win, move on. Lose, move on - next opponent.
We also play servers choice of deciding point side - as the Next gen tournament does.
It keeps the fast four sets pretty even time wise.
No endless deuce/ad.

If you are just playing one opponent, BO5 fast four (as in the next gen tournament), the ups and downs even out.

Getting to 0-40 and knowing you have 4 game points and not 3 is a great feeling . Blowing them all and losing the game.. not so great

For the pro circuit, I don't mind.
I enjoy the fast four next gen event enormously. I also enjoy regular ATP matches.
I hate duff line calls - all ATP / ITF should use automated line calls as the Next Gen Tournament does.

The time waste of line judge calling it out, challenge, oh it was just in, replay and disadvantage often to the returner, facing a first serve again - is not fair..
The tactical challenge, esp between first and second serve is bad too.

Play the ball until it's called.
99.9999% of the time it's worked at 3 Next Gen Tournaments. There was just one confusion I can remember and I watched as many of the matches as humanly possible , but that was sorted by a review.

Please ATP / ITF, embrace technology.. the Victorians who started this beautifully game on its current course would have done so, in a heart beat..
 

van_Loederen

Professional
very interesting idea once again.
the merit of Deuce is that it's more entertaining than No-Ad, while the latter reduces the match duration.
No-Deuce appears as a middle ground in both regards. some matches go to deuce so often that one may wish for some quicker solution, but my impression is that most of the time Deuce scoring makes tennis more dramatic and entertaining than No-Deuce would.

for the purpose of shortening matches, changing the deuce scoring also isn't the only option available
and best-of-3 matches also don't need to be shortened in the first place, no?
for Slams, regular b-o-3 would arguably be too short even (while regular best-of-5 is essentially too long).
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Did I understand, I don't know. But... You perhaps think that it is unfair to get the advantage although the points are 40-all, another player is leading although he hasn't gather any points more than his opponent.

If so.... you think that all the points, new and old, early and late are equal, the same worth. In reality they aren't. Everybody knows 'important points' although in mathematical sense they are always only one (1) point. I think it is not an injustice that the point from '30-40' to '40-40' is a little bit worthier than the 1st point of the game.
But my counter to this is that there's a substantial difference between important points (now) that happen organically, as opposed to no-deuce, which imposes that points at 40-30 or 30-40 are automatically worth more. To me, these are vastly different things. Of the two, I would take no-ad over no-deuce. (Another idea is to limit the number of deuces in a game - say after 6 deuces, the receiver picks whether the server serves to ad or deuce court...I'm thinking out loud here, and not sure I would support this.)
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
The returner can be Rafa and the server Stefa in our example. Let's suppose that Rafa gets the fifth point: 30-40. Also the following point goes to Rafa: Game to Rafa. It was a normal game. If Stefa wins the sixth point: (40-40 and) ad to him. Furthermore Stefa wins: Game to him.

If Rafa would have won the seventh point at 40-40 the score would be still 40-40 but ad to Rafa. One point and game to Rafa.

In a nutshell: After the score 30-all the player who wins two points in a row wins a game.
well thanks for this because I had no idea what this proposal was. still confused though, what happens if the 40/40 point goes to the player without AD? seems like it continues pretty much like a regular deuce game.
pointless at best
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
The returner can be Rafa and the server Stefa in our example. Let's suppose that Rafa gets the fifth point: 30-40. Also the following point goes to Rafa: Game to Rafa. It was a normal game. If Stefa wins the sixth point: (40-40 and) ad to him. Furthermore Stefa wins: Game to him.

If Rafa would have won the seventh point at 40-40 the score would be still 40-40 but ad to Rafa. One point and game to Rafa.

In a nutshell: After the score 30-all the player who wins two points in a row wins a game.
Well, 30-30, then someone goes to 40-30 or 30-40. Obviously the next point can end the game, either a hold or a break, but the other I don't get. You say 7th point. 40-40 is 6 points, so you are saying the next point decides the game? Because 40-40 is defined as deuce. Once you get there, 6 points, in conventional tennis you can win in 8 points. As I understand it, no add just means you play a max of 7 points. For the 7th point, if necessary, the receiver picks the side.

I can't figure out what it is that you are suggesting for an alternative.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Actually, the advantage has switched so far to servers that anything that adjusts the balance a bit towards receivers would be interesting. The problem with long deuce games is that it almost always ends up being a hold, as we've seen so many times even with the Big 3 when they get so many break points that are cancelled the next point and end up being holds. There is a reason why TBs are so dramatic.
 

merwy

Legend
Actually, the advantage has switched so far to servers that anything that adjusts the balance a bit towards receivers would be interesting. The problem with long deuce games is that it almost always ends up being a hold, as we've seen so many times even with the Big 3 when they get so many break points that are cancelled the next point and end up being holds. There is a reason why TBs are so dramatic.
I don’t think tennis has become more serve dominant than it was in the Sampras era. It either stayed the same or has become less serve dominant
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I don’t think tennis has become more serve dominant than it was in the Sampras era. It either stayed the same or has become less serve dominant
Statistically what you or I think does not matter. Check the numbers. Games on serve are going up, games on return are going down. Don't judge by Sampras only, or by his matches with Ivanisevic and a couple other great servers. It's like judging games won on return, on clay, by looking at Nadal, or judging return on HC from Murray and Djokovic. As a whole there is as strong trend, and it's been going on for decades. Total games, %, stays roughly the same.


Eyeball the guys at the top, notice how few men from the 90s are near the top, which makes Sampras stand out as a freak, and I mean that in a positive way.

Now check return:

Edberg has to stand out, and remember by the time these stats started he was 25, so his return numbers are going to be declining. 28% of games won on return is huge. Check out Hewitt, Murray, Djokovic, Fed. Sampras was a total outlier. And that's on so-called slowed-down grass.

Now check HC, really where the most stats come from:


Who is at the top? Chang. Change had numbers in 1992 similar to Djokovic's 2011, but a miserable 78% of service games won.

Meanwhile, Nadal just had his best year ever serving on HC.
 
Well, 30-30, then someone goes to 40-30 or 30-40. Obviously the next point can end the game, either a hold or a break, but the other I don't get. You say 7th point. 40-40 is 6 points, so you are saying the next point decides the game? Because 40-40 is defined as deuce. Once you get there, 6 points, in conventional tennis you can win in 8 points. As I understand it, no add just means you play a max of 7 points. For the 7th point, if necessary, the receiver picks the side.

I can't figure out what it is that you are suggesting for an alternative.
"You don't get it." Once more. The score 40-40 is never 'deuce'!

The last time in the game when the situation is exactly equal is in numbers 30-30. Then, in a situation after two points, there is an advantage to whoever received the latter of those two points. Winning the ad-point means that the player wins the game. Losing the advantage always means changing the player who has the advantage. From there, the 40-40 starts the no-deuce phase where the situation is always one: the advantage for the returner or for the server until the other wins two points in a row.
Well, 30-30, then someone goes to 40-30 or 30-40. Obviously the next point can end the game, either a hold or a break, but the other I don't get. You say 7th point. 40-40 is 6 points, so you are saying the next point decides the game? Because 40-40 is defined as deuce. Once you get there, 6 points, in conventional tennis you can win in 8 points. As I understand it, no add just means you play a max of 7 points. For the 7th point, if necessary, the receiver picks the side.

I can't figure out what it is that you are suggesting for an alternative.
"You don't get it." Once more. The score 40-40 is never 'deuce'!

The last time in the game when the situation is exactly equal is in numbers 30-30. Then, in a situation after two points, there is an advantage to whoever received the latter of those two points. Winning the ad-point means that the player wins the game. Losing the advantage always means changing the player who has the advantage. From there, the 40-40 starts the no-deuce phase where the situation is always one: the advantage for the returner or for the server until the other wins two points in a row.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Maybe we should just have one point per game? Winner takes all.

That should satisfy the short attention spans of the modern world and fit nicely into a five minutes highlights reel on YouTube.
 

BGod

Legend
I will never support no-ad because sudden death is just not tennis.

I can be fine with the no deuce as needing to win 3 points in a row can become a chore as you see a player constantly winning 2 in a row but not the 3rd to lose it out.
 
I will never support no-ad because sudden death is just not tennis.

I can be fine with the no deuce as needing to win 3 points in a row can become a chore as you see a player constantly winning 2 in a row but not the 3rd to lose it out.
Thats' the real point. Imagine that the score is in the normal game 40-30 to the server. In order to win that game the returner ougth to win 3 points in a row. It is almost the same as the returner would think at 40-0: "Take it easy, only 3 points, and the score will be deuce. Then it is not far away to break. Come on!" Maybe I exaggerate a little...

But in the no-deuce the same 40-30 (the server leading) would mean to the returner:" Only one ball and I'll get the ad and after that point the break (the seventh game), the set will be mine!"

Anyhow the difference is remarkable and of course the audience notices it.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
tennis viewers should really have no issue with the length of a match.. if the match is great it will likely be close..it will drag on...fantastic! the game is pretty perfect as is.. change nothing..or risk creating a new era in the open era where the game was fundamentally changed by outside meddling.
 
Maybe we should just have one point per game? Winner takes all.

That should satisfy the short attention spans of the modern world and fit nicely into a five minutes highlights reel on YouTube.

Just curious, would it be the returner who would choose the service court in each game? Furthermore, to my mind the pause after every two games (two points) is too often! Would the tie-break-game be similar as the others, first to one point scoring system. As if it were a little poor I see.... Perhaps you will polish your idea... Good attempt, however!
 

Fairhit

Semi-Pro
I think I get it now, at 40-40 the player who wins two in a row gets the game. It's not a bad idea but it could equally drag if no one wins two in a row.
 

Robert F

Semi-Pro
I find the need to win at least 2 of 3 sets, win 2 games more than your oppenent to win a set and to win 2 more points than your opponent to win a game crucial to making tennis unique. If you get rid of the deuce concept, might as well get rid of games and let guys have 4 service points each and keep a cumulative score first to get to 24 points by 2 wins the set.

I'm still not sure I understand no-deuce. If I'm serving at 40-30, I hit an ACE, win the game. If I'm serving at 40-30, then I double fault is it 40-all or 40-Ad Receiver?

If I'm serving at 30-40 and DF, game receiver. If I'm serving 30-40 and hit an ACE, is it Ad Server-40?

Then if it is 40-Ad Receiver and I hit an Ace does it go to 40-40 or does it go to Ad-Server-40?

Hence, if it is Ad-Server-40 and I DF, does it then go to 40-40 or 40-Ad Receiver?

Regardless, beware of shortening tennis. It may seem appealing, but I think it will get rid of classic matches and start to eliminate the drama of matches.
 
On
I find the need to win at least 2 of 3 sets, win 2 games more than your oppenent to win a set and to win 2 more points than your opponent to win a game crucial to making tennis unique. If you get rid of the deuce concept, might as well get rid of games and let guys have 4 service points each and keep a cumulative score first to get to 24 points by 2 wins the set.

I'm still not sure I understand no-deuce. If I'm serving at 40-30, I hit an ACE, win the game. If I'm serving at 40-30, then I double fault is it 40-all or 40-Ad Receiver?

If I'm serving at 30-40 and DF, game receiver. If I'm serving 30-40 and hit an ACE, is it Ad Server-40?

Then if it is 40-Ad Receiver and I hit an Ace does it go to 40-40 or does it go to Ad-Server-40?

Hence, if it is Ad-Server-40 and I DF, does it then go to 40-40 or 40-Ad Receiver?

Regardless, beware of shortening tennis. It may seem appealing, but I think it will get rid of classic matches and start to eliminate the drama of matches.
If the score is at 30-40 (or 40-30) it is always the same as in normal scoring. The difference is after the following, the sixth point. Then there are two possibilities: 1) The game has ended or 2) it is ad for the one who won the sixth point.

In the shorter doubles version the above situation is already at 15-30 (30-15). After the following, the fourth point the game has just ended (by numbers 40-15) or it is ad for the player who won the fourth point.

Advertisement: The doubles matches (although of 3 trad sets) using the no-deuce-rule don't last more than the present doubles matches with no-ad-games and the super tie-break as the third set.
 

Fairhit

Semi-Pro
I find the need to win at least 2 of 3 sets, win 2 games more than your oppenent to win a set and to win 2 more points than your opponent to win a game crucial to making tennis unique. If you get rid of the deuce concept, might as well get rid of games and let guys have 4 service points each and keep a cumulative score first to get to 24 points by 2 wins the set.

I'm still not sure I understand no-deuce. If I'm serving at 40-30, I hit an ACE, win the game. If I'm serving at 40-30, then I double fault is it 40-all or 40-Ad Receiver?

If I'm serving at 30-40 and DF, game receiver. If I'm serving 30-40 and hit an ACE, is it Ad Server-40?

Then if it is 40-Ad Receiver and I hit an Ace does it go to 40-40 or does it go to Ad-Server-40?

Hence, if it is Ad-Server-40 and I DF, does it then go to 40-40 or 40-Ad Receiver?

Regardless, beware of shortening tennis. It may seem appealing, but I think it will get rid of classic matches and start to eliminate the drama of matches.
At 40-40 the ad is for the player who won the last point.

If you are 30-40 and hit an ace you have the advantage, if after that ace and with the score at 40-40 you double fault, the advantage is for your opponent.

In simplest terms, you don't have to bring back an advantage by winning two points and then a third one to win the game, if you win the point at 40-40 even if the advantage was your opponent's, you just have to win another point.
 
Top