The absurdity of tennis scoring
 

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

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.

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

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

I love it when QuikSand shows his hater side. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

+1

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

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?

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

Ah, I concur.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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?

dola

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

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.
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad-example (Post 1765822) dola If they want to fix tennis, leave the scoring alone and just make them play with wooden racquets.

Or with exploding rackets.

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.

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

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.

That was a great post, kcchief19.

Back in the day, winning the grand slam pretty much required that you be able to play more than one style in order to win on the different surfaces. As I said, I haven't watched in many years, but around the time I stopped it seemed like watching a match on clay was hardly different from grass or hard court. I would guess that is still the case, probably to an even greater degree. Does the surface matter at all these days?

Not as much, but it still does matter. The reason Roger Federer is so great is because he's basically able to transcend this in a way that no one else has in a really long time. He's got beautiful strokes and plays masterful tennis. He's a marvel to watch in any era and is really the only player on the tour right now who I think could've hung with the best players of the last 25-30 years.

The scoring in tennis is not at all hard to follow. To win a set, you must win 6 games, and be ahead by 2; to win a game, you need 4 points, and be ahead by 2.

The issue is the nomenclature, which is a little funky, but really not very complicated at all - if you're interested and are not learning disabled, it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to pick it up. Bowling or darts might be a good comparison.

Changing up the tour structure is another thing entirely.

The lack of rallies has ruined any interest I had in the sport. I used to play all the time during the summer growing up and liked to watch the major events, as well as the occasional Davis Cup (now that's complicated). Once people started banging 200 MPH serves past someone who doesn't even bother to move, I lost all interest.

Give me some skinny dude with a wooden racket, please.

Apparently there was an event in 2007 called Turbo Tennis that took 4 current pros and two former ones and put them in a bracket or something.

Here were the rules.


I dunno if speed alone would make things more interesting, but...maybe.

Is they any particular reason to have a rule about color?

I think the idea here is probably to try to "jazz it up" by making things less staid and "boring" as some tournaments (Wimbledon notably) require players to wear white.

Tennis scoring is fine. Also, I'm not sure about the reference to curling. Closest stone to the centre scores. How is that illogical?

How about tennis seeding? If the final 8 all made it to the quarters, you'd have some silliness...

On the women's side:
1 vs. 7
3 vs. 5
4 vs. 6
2 vs. 8

On the men's side
1 vs. 6
4 vs. 5
3 vs. 7
2 vs. 8

So for the men, the 2 seed gets to face the lowest remaining seed, followed by the 3 seed? This isn't even the most fucked up as I've seen 1 vs. 5 in the quarters and more. How come they can't arrange it like every other sport whereas it would work out to be 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 if the top 8 remain. I just don't get it.

In tennis the seeding is not static as in other sports because players player dozens of tournaments in a year. If seeding was static you'd end up with people playing the exact same players over and over and over again.


In Tennis the only 2 guarenteed spots are the #1 (top spot) and #2 (bottom slot) the rest of the seeds are randomly slotted into specific lines so that they won't play another seeded player in the first and sometimes second rounds.

This allows for much more variety in matches and keeps players from seeing the same people until they hit the quarters and semi's in most tournaments.


Also unlike other sports, the level of talent/difficulty of a lower seed isn't as big iof a difference. If #1 plays #8 or #4 the match is just as difficult. The #2 player you noted playing the lowest seed left may in fact lose that match.

Unlike team sports tennis is truly one on one (except in doubles of course LOL) and the seeding is based on a rolling ranking, not a win loss record. So its quite a bit different.

ALso note that seeding doesn't always match the current USTA rankings.

The tournament director(s) have the right to seed the tournament however they wish. Its normally done by teh rankings for simplicity but some tournaments will move someone up or down based on previous play at that tournament.

Someone who won a tournament the year before may be given the top seed the following year in respect for their being the reigning champion of that tournament.

Well, I understand it's still a hard match, and I know seedings /= rankings...but still. But in most other sports, the #1 seed means you always play the lowest remaining seed, whereas in Tennis you could end up playing the 5th seed in the quarters while the person seeded 2 spots below you is playing somebody worse (providing all 8 seeds make the quarters, which never happens). It just doesn't logistically make sense.

Yeah buts its 15, 30, 40


What if Monday games were 8 and the rest of the week were 9?


ok, what if you got 5 downs in the 4th quarter only?


Got it. 3rd quarter is now 18 minutes.

Do you guys really think the argument structure is right?

And lets not even start on the Love bit, which should be oeuff (sp?) for Egg which makes much more sense.

Then you'd be the University of Colorado.

Dola

I had that joke in the tank for 7 months.

Glad I could set you up Pumpy

Your idea doesn't make much more sense, really.

Logistically it's almost impossible for a tournament to re-arrange matchups after every round. Day 1, first game, the #1 seed beats the #128 seed. Day 2, last game, the #127 upsets the #2, al other higher seeds managed to win. Now what? Start Day 3 with a well rested #1 seed versus that #127?

How rewarding is it to tell players: if you beat Rafael Nadal, you will play Roger Federer in the next round (or vice versa)? Sure, most human beings would love to play them in back to back games, but it simply isn't fair to reward 'higher' seeds by giving them another easy matchup and 'punish' lower seeds by giving them their toughest possible opponents in the next round.

Or is that not what you would want to happen? You just want to keep the best players away from each other as long as possible? News flash: the way they do it in tennis (at least the ATP and the Grand Slams), it's already taken care of. 1 and 2 are split, 1-4 are split, 1-8 are all split, 1-16 are all split, 1-32 are all split, it's the weaker 75% of the field that don't get seeded.

Additionally, contrary to what RendeR said, at the top of the tennis world seeding = ranking. The best 30 to 50 players are required to play the most important 15 tournaments of the year and usually collectively play the better warm up tournaments in between. With that 1 vs 8 idea, it would give the the same brackets for a couple of weeks in a row. How boring would that be?

this thread reminds me of people who don't like baseball or hockey because they are too low scoring but think a 35-28 football game (5-4 really) is a high scoring shootout.

The concept of the "turbo tennis" is that much different from the rules of World Team Tennis ... and that is much less popular than regular tennis.

You misunderstand...I'm not saying anything should be reseeded during. What I'm saying is that the draw is set up so you get these matchups later. If the top 8 players make it (which doesn't happen often if ever), you don't get a typical matchup (1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5) without reseeding. Can't they set up the draw so we don't see like 1 vs. 5 in the quarters?

Of course I'm talking theoretical since the top 8 never all make the quarters, but sometimes we see a 1/5 matchup in the quarters, and then the 3 playing the 7, which doesn't make any sense.

I think the odd scoring actually serves a purpose. It differentiates the points from the game score. If you say the score is 40-30, then people know you're referring to the points. If you say its 3-1, then you know they are talking about 3 games to 1. Now if they just had another numbering scheme for sets.

Well because tennis isn't a team sport. And there isn't much money in it.

But it is different than team tennis, in the sense that it's solo tennis, the draw is done all in one day and so, conceptually, you'd have say, an entire tournament over an entire day, versus over a week or so. That would be an interesting shift in the same way, that say, 20/20 Cricket has changed cricket by taking it from a several day affair to something that's about as long as a baseball game.

It's a pretty radical change. It was just a novelty event, but hey, this whole thread was really at conceptualizing something different, not really about a failure to understand the rules of the sport or why.

You know, pushing the envelope and all that.

Who the Hell would want a tournament over in one day?! A great deal of the fun is the building tension as the days go on and you have time to reflect over the previous day's actions.

Twenty20 is far different because you are taking a day long test match, which is hard to sit through the entire thing, to something that can be done in 3-4 hours. Much easier to catch.

"Nadal is leading 2-1, but Federer just went up 4-3, to build on his 3-2 lead".

Heh, I didn't fully misunderstood, I covered that other option in the second half of my post. ;)

MIJB: While seedings CAN == ranking it is not always the case and it is not a rule that it be so. It generally happens that way because its the simplest solution but there is no rule or regulation making it so.

For example last summer Serene Williams was a #1 seed at a prepertory tournament to the US open, she was ranked 5th or 6th I believe at that time, perhaps lower now that I think about it. There were 3 players above her in the rankings in the same tournament, so if they went by rankings she would have at best been seeded 4th.

The tournament wanted her #1 because she had won that tournament the year before and she is a huge ticket seller.


Another note on the actual positioning of the seeds: In your examples you are assuming a MUCH greater difference in skill level between 1 and 8. Anyone who reaches the top 15-20 in the USTA rankings could easily be #1 and can and probably has beaten the Top players at some point.

The idea that 1 should play 8 is rather irrelevent to making sure they get a good misture of matches year round.

Also the randomness isn't as extreme as you might think either.

Normally 1, 3, 5,7 ate top hjalf seeds and the even numbers are bottom half. The way the USTA rules set things up 3 and 4 get decided randomly top half, bottom half, in the spot that either number should be in anyway.

So basiacally all thats happening is the lowers seeds are flipping a coin to see if they could face #1 or #2 at some point during the tournament.

Sure but couldn't we score it 15,30,45?

Not really, the ATP Rulebook is very explicit about how seeding should go, it has for many years now. in 2009, there's no difference: seeding is based on the ATP Rankings. The trick for tournaments like Wimbledon is that the four Grand Slam tournaments are not officially linked to the ATP Tour and thus are not tied to those rules. Fwiw, it's the same rule book that tells the top players in the world they must play, barring injury.

Now, what the WTA tour says, I have no idea. So it could be that the WTA has that kind of rule where for some reason they can re-order the players the way they want to.

Math is evil, i´m glad at least tennis doesn´t give in to it.

I love tennis scoring personally. I also miss playing the sport, which I haven't since two years in high school (also my first tennis experience). Was the only sport I played my senior year.

There really wasn't any particular thread to post it, but Serena's meltdown wasn't pretty to watch today. Even if the umpire misread what was going on, her rant was...spectacularly painful. Then the crowd turned on poor Osaka for winning and she apologized!

Serena Williams unleashes furious rant at umpire as she loses US Open 2018 final to Naomi Osaka