The absurdity of tennis scoring

[Young Drachma]

I've played for 20 years. Of course I get it. But that doesn't mean that it's not the single most annoying thing about the sport to me. Curling seems more logical by comparison. Is it time to modernize tennis scoring?

Discuss.




From wikiland

A game consists of a sequence of points played with the same player serving, and is won by the first player to have won at least four points and at least two points more than their opponent. The half of the court used for service alternates between sides, beginning with the right-hand half, known as the deuce court, and continuing with the left-hand side, known as the advantage court.'

As simple as this scoring appears, the running score of each game is described in a manner peculiar to tennis: scores of zero to three points are described as "love" (or "zero"), "fifteen," "thirty," and "forty," respectively. The origins of the fifteen, thirty, forty scores are believed to have medieval and French roots. It is possible a clock face was used on court, with a quarter move of the hand to indicate a score of fifteen, thirty, and forty-five. When the hand moved to sixty, the game was over. Another explanation is that the scoring system was copied from the game sphairistike, which was played by British officers in India during the 19th century. That game's scoring system was based on the different gun calibres of the British naval ships. When firing a salute, the ships first fired their 15-pound guns on the main deck, followed by the 30-pound guns of the middle deck, and finally by the 40-pound lower gun deck.[1]

The origin of the use of "love" for zero is also disputed; it is possible that it derives from the French word for an egg (l‘oeuf) because an egg looks like the number zero. "Love" is also said to possibly derive from "l'heure" or "the hour" in French. When stating the score, the server's score is stated first. If the server (or the umpire) announces the score as "thirty-love," for example, it means that the server has won two points and the receiver none.

If each player has won three points, the score is described as "deuce" rather than "forty-all". From this point on, whenever the score is tied, it is described as "deuce" regardless of how many points have been played. The player who wins the next point after deuce is said to have the advantage. If the player with advantage loses the next point, the score is again deuce, since the score is tied. If the player with the advantage wins the next point, that player has won the game, since the player now leads by two points. When the server is the player with the advantage, the score is stated by him before the next point as "advantage in." When the server's opponent has the advantage, the server states the score as "advantage out." These phrases are sometimes shortened to "ad in" and "ad out."

Note that a score of "thirty-all" is functionally equivalent to "deuce", and "forty-thirty" is equivalent to "advantage". These equivalences are not used in a professional match where the umpire states the score. A score of "thirty-all" means that the players have won exactly two points each, while a score of "deuce" means that the players have won at least three points each.

The current point score is announced orally before each point by the umpire, or by the server if there is no umpire.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't see any reason to. I mean people know what 15, 30, and 40 mean. I don't see a pressing need to make them 1, 2, and 3.

[st.cronin]

The scoring makes sense to me. Its a little eccentric, but not at all difficult to understand.

[QuikSand]

Without its quirks, tennis would be even less relevant, if that's possible.

[flere-imsaho]

I love it when QuikSand shows his hater side.

[heybrad]

If the scoring was changed it would make the title of my movie meaningless.

My movie: Crusty white teacher takes job at inner city school where for some extra pay he agrees to coach the entirely minority tennis team. Hilarity ensues.

Title: Forty Love.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Without its quirks, tennis would be even less relevant, if that's possible.

Relevant is an odd word to use about games, sporting or otherwise. Especially those that are widely-followed enough to have international television coverage of its major (and some minor) events.

[Autumn]

I'll give you a "hell yeah." People might know what it means (those who follow tennis), but it's still ridiculously obtuse. And perhaps it is a barrier for some people who would be more interested if they could quickly understand what is going on.

It's like that How I Met Your Mohter episode with Barney playing that strange game with the Chinese guys.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'll give you a "hell yeah." People might know what it means (those who follow tennis), but it's still ridiculously obtuse. And perhaps it is a barrier for some people who would be more interested if they could quickly understand what is going on.

I'm not a tennis fan, but I think it is only slightly more difficult to follow than basketball or football scoring.

[MJ4H]

I'll agree that the scoring is obtuse and annoying and nobody should really mind changing it to be less so.

[panerd]

Uh. I understand tennis scoring. I have actually tried to sit down and figure out match play golf and have no idea what those scores mean.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have actually tried to sit down and figure out match play golf and have no idea what those scores mean.

+1

It's right up there with cricket scoring for me.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by panerd

Uh. I understand tennis scoring. I have actually tried to sit down and figure out match play golf and have no idea what those scores mean.

It's usually how many holes one player is up followed by how many holes are remaining.

For instance a player could be just +2 meaning 2 holes up, or may have won "3 and 2" meaning 3 holes up with 2 holes to go (meaning the game is over as the trailing player can no longer possibly win).

I think that's all there is to it?

[GoldenEagle]

The only reason I know anything about tennis scoring is because of the nintendo wii.

[Young Drachma]

I obviously understand tennis scoring, but the sport is already dying a slow death at the top levels, because kids don't play it like they used to. And I used to always tell kids as they get involved that the scoring was the hardest part of teaching them tennis. Which might sound hilarious, but I stand by that.


It's still a big foreign sport, but it's popularity surely isn't what it used to be. Changing the scoring to be more logical isn't a huge thing, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Sorta like volleyball moving to rally scoring. I mean, it was a simple -- but radical -- change that took a while, but it'll make the sport a lot more watchable long term, because you can follow it easier.

Not every sport ought to be designed for spectators, mind you, but at the point people start to lose interest and it becomes more and more of a niche, the sponsors will find other ways to spend their money and move on.

Golf scoring is strange from the way it's presented, but it's not that complicated on the whole. I've had a way easier time explaining golf scoring to someone, than tennis scoring. It might surely be the way I present stuff, but...I'd say that changing the match scoring to be more logical couldn't hurt at all.

I'm not sure what way I'd change it. When I setup a juniors league at the camp I taught at a few years back, the lowest division for tennis beginners wouldn't even use tennis scoring. We just played first person to win 15 points by 2.

As a player, I like being able to "start over" psychologically after each game and I think that it's a huge part of the game. I don't know that you could change it in any other way, than maybe if you ultimately did what Twenty20 Cricket did to regular cricket, to make the game more "interesting."

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I obviously understand tennis scoring, but the sport is already dying a slow death at the top levels, because kids don't play it like they used to. And I used to always tell kids as they get involved that the scoring was the hardest part of teaching them tennis. Which might sound hilarious, but I stand by that.


It's still a big foreign sport, but it's popularity surely isn't what it used to be. Changing the scoring to be more logical isn't a huge thing, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Sorta like volleyball moving to rally scoring. I mean, it was a simple -- but radical -- change that took a while, but it'll make the sport a lot more watchable long term, because you can follow it easier.

Not every sport ought to be designed for spectators, mind you, but at the point people start to lose interest and it becomes more and more of a niche, the sponsors will find other ways to spend their money and move on.

Golf scoring is strange from the way it's presented, but it's not that complicated on the whole. I've had a way easier time explaining golf scoring to someone, than tennis scoring. It might surely be the way I present stuff, but...I'd say that changing the match scoring to be more logical couldn't hurt at all.

I'm not sure what way I'd change it. When I setup a juniors league at the camp I taught at a few years back, the lowest division for tennis beginners wouldn't even use tennis scoring. We just played first person to win 15 points by 2.

As a player, I like being able to "start over" psychologically after each game and I think that it's a huge part of the game. I don't know that you could change it in any other way, than maybe if you ultimately did what Twenty20 Cricket did to regular cricket, to make the game more "interesting."

You can't be serious. It's not hard.

Talk about the wussification of America. "Oh Bluto, we can't play tennis it's too hard."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You can't be serious. It's not hard.

Talk about the wussification of America. "Oh Bluto, we can't play tennis it's too hard."

That's not what I meant. But thanks.

It was meant to be a way to ease the barriers to entry to tennis. Because kids see it and think "that's too hard" or "I won't play that when I can pick up a baseball or a basketball or a football or a soccer ball or a video game controller" and learn/play that.

My goal first and foremost was to get a racquet in their hand and get them interested in playing the sport, then we could work on details like "here's how you keep score" rather than making that one of the first lessons.

Also, kids like to play. They don't want to be inundated with learning how to do fine minutia of what comprises the right backhand. So you have to create things to keep them engrossed, to get them interested and before you know it, they seek you out to learn more and to get better.

So no, I didn't bother wasting a whole lot of time trying to teach them tennis scoring. I put a racquet in their hand, taught them lessons and let them join leagues where they could apply their newfound knowledge against their peers immediately. As they gained experience, the scoring and everything else was integrated into their lessons.

[rkmsuf]

So scoring is irrelevant then when it comes to getting kids to play tennis.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

So scoring is irrelevant then when it comes to getting kids to play tennis.

Yeah, I figured that'd be your response. It's okay.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, I figured that'd be your response. It's okay.

If the point is the scoring is silly than sure. If the point is that changing it makes a difference in the youth participation in the sport, I doubt that is the case.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

If the point is the scoring is silly than sure. If the point is that changing it makes a difference in the youth participation in the sport, I doubt that is the case.

I have no illusions changing tennis scoring will result in a swell of youth flocking to the sport. That's ridiculous and not what I was saying, using one ancedotal example to bolter my main point, that tennis scoring is silly. That was my only point.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I have no illusions changing tennis scoring will result in a swell of youth flocking to the sport. That's ridiculous and not what I was saying, using one ancedotal example to bolter my main point, that tennis scoring is silly. That was my only point.

Ah, I concur.

[RendeR]

As with any sport Tennis has its traditions. The scoring system has been under attack for decades, especially in the United States where Americans want "instant total gratificatoin" they want everything handed to them on the simplest most feeder friendly platter possible.

Tennis is a challenging mental ches match with your opponent that has developed to what it is from very crude beginnings in the middle ages. The scoring system, while eccentric, is one of the most intrinsic traditions in ANY sport.

Would you change Golf scoring from Birdie, Eagle and bogey to simple "-1, -2, and +1" ? no, because the terminology is what ads to the sport.

The scoring system does not deter anyone from playing the game, because unless they get on the court and try to play they aren't really that interested to begin with.

I will agree that Tennis in the US is in severe decline. The American great players have vanished and the huge whirlwind of interest that built it up in the 80's and 90's has begun to ebb away.

For myself I love the game because it has al the elements I enjoy. Great physical excercise, precision skills, and a solid stratigic element to every point played.

your Mileage may vary.

[RendeR]

DOLA: Typing on the other hand, has never been one of my high level skills....

[rkmsuf]

All the tennis players became golfers.

That and you have all the younger 'stars' either retiring or pursuing other things(Williams sisters).

The Andy Roddicks and James Blakes of the world spend a big chunk of time overseas playing and just aren't at the forefront of the youth sporting world. Tennis is only an interesting TV product once a year....the US Open. And even that timing is terrible considering summer is wrapping up and all the fall sports are starting.

[rkmsuf]

dola and technology has made the service game, at least for the men, eliminate much of the strategy

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

All the tennis players became golfers.

That and you have all the younger 'stars' either retiring or pursuing other things(Williams sisters).

The Andy Roddicks and James Blakes of the world spend a big chunk of time overseas playing and just aren't at the forefront of the youth sporting world. Tennis is only an interesting TV product once a year....the US Open. And even that timing is terrible considering summer is wrapping up and all the fall sports are starting.

Actually Tennis has 4 major TV periods for the 4 slams. Australia in the spring is probably the hardest due to time differences, but Roland Garos (French Open) and Wimbledon are also big TV market events.

I definitely see a lack of real personalities in American players. I never liked the Williams sisters to begin with, I always felt their attitudes were simply not beneficial to Tennis in general, but thats just my own preference. They did indeed draw many young people into the sport that otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

The days of Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, etc are definitely over. Our biggest name now os Roddick and he's due to bow out soon and he's always been a pretty lame candidate anyway. He never really lived up to the hype. He's a great player and a very nice person (met him at a USTA event in hartford in 2002) but everyone expected him to be the next lendl or Currier and I think the pressure to be that always hurt him.

These days I'm actually enjoying the Russian invasion and nothing beats a Federer/Nadal match for just unbelievable tennis.

Its still a great sport. I think the thing that really keeps it from being an "everyman" game is the cost. Court fees, racket costs, lessons that run from 50-500 an hour depending on the pro teaching them...its really insane.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

dola and technology has made the service game, at least for the men, eliminate much of the strategy

How do you figure this? Service game for men has always been about power. The big hitters do far better than the spin masters. Its been that way throughout history. Every innovation of ball and racket and even the line-calling systems has simply led to this being more pointed.

Strategy is still a large part of it based on placement, how much/little spin to apply to the serve, what to do after the serve, do you come in and serve/volley or do you sit back and see if they can return it?

I'm interested to hear your take on it.

[rkmsuf]

See I think tennis is a terrific everyman sport. It's accessible to most people. All you need is a racquet and a can of balls. At least here, public courts are plentiful. I used to play a ton of tennis as a kid...pickup games if you will. I took a few lessons...those would be akin to say basketall camp.

Where the game falls down is that very perception that it's a country club sport. Golf has done well to dispel that to a degree. Tennis has failed miserably partly due to the lack of personalities in the game. What made the old guard great was their flair. Nowdays tennis seems to showcase the athletics of the game which is no match for major sports...at least from the youth point of view.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by RendeR

How do you figure this? Service game for men has always been about power. The big hitters do far better than the spin masters. Its been that way throughout history. Every innovation of ball and racket and even the line-calling systems has simply led to this being more pointed.

Strategy is still a large part of it based on placement, how much/little spin to apply to the serve, what to do after the serve, do you come in and serve/volley or do you sit back and see if they can return it?

I'm interested to hear your take on it.

I just think about how day in, day out there seems to be a lack of rallies in high level men's matches.

It's possible I'm mistaken as my tennis viewership has declined over the years.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I just think about how day in, day out there seems to be a lack of rallies in high level men's matches.

It's possible I'm mistaken as my tennis viewership has declined over the years.

Actually for the most part in recent years the Serve and volley points have really declined. most players tend to rally for a few shots on every point these days. Players like nadal and Federer have really caused a decline in serve and volley games because they're so fast and athletic they can get back in position faster than the server can place a good volley.

The only problem with it being an everyman sport the way you say is still somewhat a matter of expense. Even with using free courts and 30 buck rackets from wal-mart you can play and have fun, but to really grow into the sport and excel as a youth you have to move beyond that level of investment.

Even to play high school level today you have to go beyond the basics as players that show any real talent for the game get pushed into club systems and take lessons as the parents want to see them excel (most times far beyond what the kid really wants to do)

I think there is a pretty wide line that people come to as tennis fans and players, you reach a cetain point where you either have to find a venue to play newer and better people (aka joining a club or joining USTA sponsored events and leagues) to improve and advance yourself within the game, or you decide its not worth the time and expense and stay at the "pickup game" level at the local high school courts. The problem with the latter is that people get tired of playing the same few people all the time so they tend to quit playing altogether.

When I worked for USTA New England in 2001-2003 I really had a hard time adapting to the mentality of the "tennis society" the people that really got in depth in the sport and got their kids playing at high levels within the region were like a whole differnet country. They spoke a different language, they had a very elitist mindset, and that, above most everything else is perhaps what is really damaging tennis in this country. instead of welcoming and really shepherding young people into the game, there is a sense of entitlement for those already there that I think needs to be overcome.

[RendeR]

Man I am writing books today, sorry for the long posts

[rkmsuf]

The only problem with it being an everyman sport the way you say is still somewhat a matter of expense. Even with using free courts and 30 buck rackets from wal-mart you can play and have fun, but to really grow into the sport and excel as a youth you have to move beyond that level of investment.

Even to play high school level today you have to go beyond the basics as players that show any real talent for the game get pushed into club systems and take lessons as the parents want to see them excel (most times far beyond what the kid really wants to do)

I think there is a pretty wide line that people come to as tennis fans and players, you reach a cetain point where you either have to find a venue to play newer and better people (aka joining a club or joining USTA sponsored events and leagues) to improve and advance yourself within the game, or you decide its not worth the time and expense and stay at the "pickup game" level at the local high school courts. The problem with the latter is that people get tired of playing the same few people all the time so they tend to quit playing altogether.

Good post. Rewind to 1989 and that is me. I guess I take away that for the last 20 years tennis has done nothing to alter this scenario.

I played a ton growing up...was one of the better players in my "circle" but wasn't from the means to join the city tennis club. Thus I played less and less as time went on.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

See I think tennis is a terrific everyman sport. It's accessible to most people. All you need is a racquet and a can of balls. At least here, public courts are plentiful. I used to play a ton of tennis as a kid...pickup games if you will. I took a few lessons...those would be akin to say basketall camp.

Where the game falls down is that very perception that it's a country club sport. Golf has done well to dispel that to a degree. Tennis has failed miserably partly due to the lack of personalities in the game. What made the old guard great was their flair. Nowdays tennis seems to showcase the athletics of the game which is no match for major sports...at least from the youth point of view.

You're right on the personalities thing. I think really the problem with tennis is that it's run by players. The ATP and WTA tours do more harm than good for their sports. They need people who are a bit removed from the sport to run it, rather than the way it's setup now. I mean, it does well considering how little it's fallen off the mainstream and I realize a lot of that has to do with the lack of American champions on the world stage...but...the game is still suffering and it won't improve unless there are things outside of the box considered to make it a bit more appealing to younger audiences.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

You're right on the personalities thing. I think really the problem with tennis is that it's run by players. The ATP and WTA tours do more harm than good for their sports. They need people who are a bit removed from the sport to run it, rather than the way it's setup now. I mean, it does well considering how little it's fallen off the mainstream and I realize a lot of that has to do with the lack of American champions on the world stage...but...the game is still suffering and it won't improve unless there are things outside of the box considered to make it a bit more appealing to younger audiences.

The tough part is that it's hard to manufacture personalities. You either have them or you don't.

Golf was lucky that Tiger came along. Tennis needs another Agassi.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RendeR

When I worked for USTA New England in 2001-2003 I really had a hard time adapting to the mentality of the "tennis society" the people that really got in depth in the sport and got their kids playing at high levels within the region were like a whole differnet country. They spoke a different language, they had a very elitist mindset, and that, above most everything else is perhaps what is really damaging tennis in this country. instead of welcoming and really shepherding young people into the game, there is a sense of entitlement for those already there that I think needs to be overcome.

I don't think you'll rid the sport of that, though. I know exactly what you're talking about. Those people ARE the USTA. No matter how much outreach the sport does, it's still a country club/private club sport with $100/hr private lessons even at the "local" clubs and expenses beyond the ordinary.

Add to it that parents can't relate, that it's not a team sport and requires a severe investment to get to the higher levels and well, it's no wonder that it's on the decline as a high school sport.

I don't fault the USTA. They've been funneling money into outreach for a lot longer than the USGA has with FAR better results, I'd say. They seem genuinely interested in outreach and growing the game, where I think with golf it's mostly rhetoric and little else.

But in some ways, it's just a cultural thing with tennis being a sport that prides itself on being the interesting mix of common players and those who wear white shirts and don't have crusts on their bread.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

The tough part is that it's hard to manufacture personalities. You either have them or you don't.

Golf was lucky that Tiger came along. Tennis needs another Agassi.

Yeah, you can't invent that stuff sadly.

I really do think that my idea mentioning Twenty20 cricket v. Test Cricket is the best example of what has to happen to tennis. Basically, some rich guy decided that regular cricket (of which can often take as long as 5 days or an entire day) was too long and boring and so, he decided to make a version that would last about as long as a baseball game.

People are calling it heresy and are really mad about it and yet, the fans love it and Indian has an entire new pro league based on the form of cricket that they've really gotten into. It's taken the sport to new heights there and around the world where it'd kinda fallen flat in recent years.

Someone rich who loves tennis needs to come along and try a bunch of stuff that the actual people who run the sport would NEVER do. Some of it will be heresy and the rest of it will be intriguing, but I think that if you could tweak a few things and maybe change the dynamics of how stuff matches up, it could be interesting.

Maybe instead of just having tournaments you make it more like boxing and have championship belts or have "queen of the hill" type deals where the best players challenge each other and it becomes more about personalities and "who is better" than about "the prestige" of winning JUST the grand slams. Let the fans cheer for the whole match and root for their favourite player.

If you were doing it with low enough ranked players, maybe have men play against women.

So like a whole parallel set of stuff. The regular players could still play in the Grand Slams and the Olympics and maybe Davis/Fed Cup stuff if they want, but instead of playing at the Timbuktu Open, they can do this other stuff. It's way better for sponsors, offers far more bang for the buck and well...I think it could be interesting.

I'm thinking way off the beaten path here

All without changing the scoring

[rkmsuf]

nice, same scoring!

It's great to think out of the box but this sounds a lot like say the NTRA to fuel interest in horse racing.

One thing that might be cool is a kind of "battle of bighorn" type event to showcase either a new format or elite players in prime time.

[rkmsuf]

the other factor I hadn't considered is that nowdays kids and adults are beaten over the head by the nba, nfl and mlb into paying attention. at least locally for the red sox, patriots and celtics, the coverage with the local and espn type outlets combined is exhausting.

seems like there was more room for other things to be important years ago. or I'm just an old bastege. very possible.

[Karlifornia]

Tennis is ridiculously fun to play....not so fun to watch. Probably my number 1 sport I've ever had the pleasure of playing.

[Groundhog]

Why are there 9 innings in baseball? Is there any particular reason for it? Why not a nice big round number? Or why not at least an even number, like 8?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Why do you get 4 downs in American football? Why not 5?

[Groundhog]

And why 12 minute quarters in the NBA? Shit. I think all major sports are in need of an update.

[Bad-example]

I used to love watching tennis on tv but I gave it up years ago. As the equipment improved it seemed like the serve and volley game disappeared as the base line players dominated. I don't know much about the current state of the game...is it still all about the serve and working the baseline? Does anyone come in and play the net successfully with any regularity these days?

[Bad-example]

dola

If they want to fix tennis, leave the scoring alone and just make them play with wooden racquets.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RendeR

How do you figure this? Service game for men has always been about power. The big hitters do far better than the spin masters. Its been that way throughout history. Every innovation of ball and racket and even the line-calling systems has simply led to this being more pointed.

Strategy is still a large part of it based on placement, how much/little spin to apply to the serve, what to do after the serve, do you come in and serve/volley or do you sit back and see if they can return it?

I'm interested to hear your take on it.

Who plays a serve/volley style anymore, especially on the men's side? I'll go one step further than rkmsuf and say that equipment has affected the return game just as much as the service game. One reason you don't see players serve and volley anymore is that almost every serve can be returned faster than the player can get to the net, and that has as much to do with the speed as the serve as it does with the ability of today's player's to return serve.

As for spin, anymore you really only see that make a difference on second services when players have to compensate for letting up on power. But I don't know anyone on the men's tour who has a slice serve like McEnroe. Everyone just blasts away. The only strategy on serve essentially becomes power and placement.

I think the point is that the power of today's game has almost completely eliminated any semblance of a net game. Case in point -- watch Wimbledon this week and watch the courts compared to 20 years ago. Once upon a time, the area around the net would be just as worn as the baseline. Today, the baseline is bare and the net area is pristine. No one is playing at the net, even on the women's side.

There is no way to slice it that strategy has reduce as power has increased. As power increases, strategy decreases. In making a comparison to baseball, if I have a 90-mph fastball I have to be very careful with the strategy of where I throw it. If I can throw a 100-mph fastball, location isn't nearly as important.

Some say that's fine, because that means there is a greater emphasis on execution. But I think tennis 10 years ago was more enjoyable to watch than it is now.

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Tennis is ridiculously fun to play....not so fun to watch. Probably my number 1 sport I've ever had the pleasure of playing.

I think tennis is a great sport to watch, just not in its present form. I have always found women's tennis to be more enjoyable than men's tennis, and I think the speed of the game is a part of that.

But I don't there is any doubt that tennis' struggles have more to do with a lack of personalities and a lack of American talent. Tennis is doing just fine in most places around the world, and it's probably more popular in some places than it's ever been. But the U.S. hasn't had a top tier men's player since Sampras and Agassi left and our two best women players don't have the drive. Sure, Tiger doesn't play every week but Tiger plays enough to make sure he's still the No. 1 player in the world. Venus and Serena have never really cared about being No. 1 as the cared about Grand Slams. That hurts.

To end my novel, tennis is struggling with the next generation but it has nothing to do with scoring. Yeah, tennis is scoring is odd but not so much as football. Why not streamline football scoring by eliminating field goals and just give teams one point for a TD?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

dola

If they want to fix tennis, leave the scoring alone and just make them play with wooden racquets.

Or with exploding rackets.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

To end my novel, tennis is struggling with the next generation but it has nothing to do with scoring. Yeah, tennis is scoring is odd but not so much as football. Why not streamline football scoring by eliminating field goals and just give teams one point for a TD?

Well, to get back to this original topic, that's not quite an equivalent analogy. That would be altering the game of football, eliminating a portion of the game and greatly changing strategy. With tennis I think the point was that the score could be related in a simpler way, so that someone watching it for the first time on TV might be able to guess what it meant. It's not a big deal, but for someone like me who only very occasionally watches it, it would mean being able to pay more attention to the game, and less to scrunching my forehead and trying to figure out how they're scoring it.

[Young Drachma]

Gotta say, I never expected this random DC in the am thread to get this much interest. lol...must be a slow day

[Young Drachma]

Dola --

I am glad that I managed to come up with a foundation for my own humble solution for solving it through this thread too...which was my only point to try to brainstorm how to fix it, even as I knew others wouldn't see a problem with the sport at all.