Talk:Tennis scoring system

Merging "Tie BREAK"

The "Tie BREAK" section in the main Tennis article was added [January 12] by Scilla, poorly worded and seemingly translated from another language into English. I vote it is merged into the Tennis score article and removed from the main Tennis article. Noelle De Guzman 11:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's poorly written, and I'd be happy to take a stab at it. Should it be in both articles? I see this a lot in reading articles that are related. Do you know the origin of the 7 point tie-break? It's a recent (last 20 years??) improvement to the game. JJ 13:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Tiebreak section can safely be deleted from the Tennis article, and put into Tennis score instead. It is way too technical for the general tennis intro. --Aree 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I would write.

At a score of 6-6, a set is often determined by one more game called a "seven point tiebreak." The set is decided by the player who wins at least seven points in the tiebreak but also has two points more than his opponent. For example, if the score is 6 points to 5 points and the player with 6 points wins the next point, he wins the tiebreak and the set. If the player with 5 points wins the point, the tiebreak continues and cannot be won on the next point, since no player will be two points better than his opponent. Since only one more game is played to determine the winner of the set, the score of the set is always 7-6 (or 6-7). Sometimes the tiebreak points are also included, for example 7-6(4). The "4" is the loser's points in the tiebreak. In the last example, the tiebreak score was 7-4. If the score was listed as 7-6(8), the tiebreak score was 10-8 (since you must win by two points).

The player who would normally be serving after 6-6 is the one to serve first in the tiebreak. This player begins his service from the deuce court and serves one point. After the first point, the serve changes to the first server's opponent. Each player then serves two consecutive points for the remainder of the tiebreak. Further, the first of each two-point service starts from the server's ad court and ends in the deuce court. After every six points, the players switch ends of the court.

I don't remember who "invented" the seven point tiebreak. Does anyone know who and when? It made a big difference in the acceptance of tennis, since the "win by two games" rule often created what seemed like unending matches.

Any comments on my description above are welcome. JJ 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something about the tiebreak in a tennis forum. [2] I haven't fact-checked that, though. Noelle De Guzman 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found something in Complete Idiot's Guide to Tennis by Trish Faulkner and Vivian Lemelman (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1999). I'm quoting the following from page 24 of that book.

"The scoring innovation that Mr. Van Alen introduced changed the face of modern tennis. This is the tiebreaker. He unveiled it in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1965. The first one was called a 9-point sudden-death tiebreaker and was used in the U.S. Open from 1970 to 1974. This tiebreak plays a maximum of nine points; it is won by the first player who takes five points. The name "sudden death" comes from the fact that if the score is four points all, the ninth point decides the winner.

"Another version, which Jimmie Van Alen called "lingering death", was the 12-point tiebreaker, which is the method now used in all tournaments throughout the world. In this system, one player, or team, must win seven points by a margin of two. Hence, the score could be 7 to 5, which accounts for the name 12-point tiebreaker. You do not have to play all twelve points. Once the player, or team, wins seven, that's the end of the tiebreak; however, it must be won by a margin of two."

-- Noelle De Guzman 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but I had thought that score 7-6 (10) means 7-6 (12-10). Doesn't the score 7-6 (4) mean 7-6 (7-4)?

You are correct, and I have updated my proposed description above. If I don't get further objections, I'll update the actual article. JJ 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on Noelle De Guzman's info, I changed the history section to indicate 1) correct spelling of van Alen, 2) year of invention (1965), and the requirement that reaching five points was all that was required. Thanks. JJ 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed "final set" to the wordier and clumsier "fifth set (men) or third set (women)" because "final set" is completely ambiguous. A given men's match might last three sets, in which case the third set was the final set of the match. I honestly did not know what the author meant when I read "final set." You mean fifth set? Or whatever set is the last set of the match? So I changed it in keeping with the dictum "wordiness is always preferable to ambiguity unless ambiguity is intended." :) Chafe66 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back to "final set" but defined what "final set" means to avoid the ambiguity. Just too cumbersome and clumsy having to say "fifth set for men (or third set for women)" every time, not to mention that leaves out doubles play. Chafe66 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Here's my question. What word or words should we be using for a tie break game. Is it "tiebreak" or "tie-breaker" or "tiebreaker" or "tie-break?" I have used tiebreak, but in some sections I used what was used before I made edits, e.g. tie-breaker. JJ 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the book I excerpted, the term used was "tiebreak." Usage varies even in tennis articles and commentating. Noelle De Guzman 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreak is the term I prefer, so why don't we agree to use it consistently throughout all the articles related to tennis? I'll wait for more input before making changes. OK? JJ 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The original term used by Van Alen and everyone else was "tiebreaker"; shortening the term to "tiebreak" is a relatively recent innovation. Rebroadcasts of old tennis matches bear this out.

Note also that even in the passage Noelle quoted above, the authors first use "tiebreaker" in each paragraph — when they are recounting the history and development of the innovation, and explaining Van Alen's terminology for the two different kinds of tiebreaker he invented — and do not revert to "tiebreak" (their own apparent preference) until they are again speaking purely in their own voices, providing their own explanation.

(In the two paragraphs that Noelle quotes, "tiebreaker" is used a total of four times, while "tiebreak" is used only twice!)

Three principal kinds of tiebreaker were in common use in the 1970s: the two that Van Alen himself invented — 9-point (or "sudden-death") and 12-point (or "lingering-death") — and a third, 13-point (or fewer) variation.

Unfortunately, I do not recall just how the 13-point tiebreaker worked, nor who invented it. But I think the principal difference was that a 13-point tiebreaker was guaranteed not to go beyond 13 points — just as Van Alen's "9-point" tiebreaker was guaranteed not to go beyond 9 points (and could end in as few as 5!) — whereas a so-called "12-point" tiebreaker can and often does go (well) beyond 12 points, until someone obtains a 2-point advantage. I think the idea behind the 13-point tiebreaker was that sudden death is a good idea in principle, but a mere 9 points is too short to be fair, so let's go to 13.

The shorter usage arose over time, presumably in part out of (syllabic) economy (or else laziness, though that might be uncharitable) and in part on the model of the term "service break". However, the terms "service break" and "tiebreak" are not exactly parallel: one describes an outcome or result, while the other refers to the match-event that produced it.

* No one knows before a service break has been achieved that the game being played will result in a break, rather than a hold, of serve. The players never play a thing called a "service break"!

* On the other hand, it is known from the outset of a tiebreak(er) that it will result (eventually!) in the breaking of the tie that exists before it is played.

If one were to construct an exactly parallel and consistent usage, a tiebreaker would be the special playoff game that is played at 6-all, and a tiebreak would be the result that is achieved once the tiebreaker has been completed.

However, the fact remains that the term "tiebreak" has caught on, and is the more popular and frequently used of the two today. The terms are still used interchangeably in television broadcasts — both by announcers and in on-screen graphics — but the newer and shorter term now has the edge. Notwithstanding that "tiebreaker" is both original and correct.

184.53.32.130 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The second sentence is not quite right: "A set consists of a number of games (typically six), which in turn consist of points." The phrase in parenthenses should probably read "typically at least six". Alastair davies 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the introduction based on your comments, and I also simplified a bit. Please comment if you have further suggestions. JJ 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the Introduction to be confusing. I don't know much about tennis but want to make this article as readable as possible. This intro goes into a lot of detail about specific cases rather than simply focusing in on the basics of all tennis scoring. There is no clear explanation of how points, games, sets and matches are related. All of the explanations about the difference between the various scoring rules just adds confusion. It would help to see something more simplified "A Tennis match is made up of a series of sets. Each set consists of a number (typically...) of games. Each game is played to a defined number of points. A point is scored by... The number of sets games and points required to win a match can vary in different environments. Typically a match consists of... in high level tournaments this can be varied..." I am not sure if this top down approach is the most straightforward or if a bottom up (a point...game...set...match) approach would be better. Hikinandbikin (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thrity All

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.

I am not sure why that paragraph exists. It's factually correct but I don't see the relevance, and to someone that doesn't know how tennis scoring works, I can see how that could be confusing. Do people agree with me? Should we consider removing it? --GarethLewin 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. There's no reason for it to be in there. -- Esque0 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. For that matter, "fifteen-all" is the functional equivalent of deuce. And so is "zero-all". It's gobbledy-gook and should be removed. Hayford Peirce 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen-all is not a functional equivalent of deuce or thirty-all because at fifteen-all, if you win two straight points then you do not win the game. The equivalence of thirty-all and deuce is this: there have to be at least two more points played in the game, and if one player wins the next two points, they win the game, and if the players split the next two points, then the score is deuce. While it's not essential to the article, I would support leaving it in, perhaps with a bit clearer explanation attached (that it's an observation about the mechanics of game scoring only). The article is already quite comprehensive, and it's an interesting quirk of the scoring system that one does not always notice at first. Dze27 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Be bold guys. --86.146.75.221 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I also agree with leaving in the sentence, and have often mused on the issue it addresses, perhaps a minor edit could be done to reflect that "thirty-all" and "deuce" are equivalent only when no-add scoring is not in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.155.170 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies--I should have said "while I also agree with leaving in the passage..." since it is more than one sentence. In any event, I've taken a shot at a change to reflect the edit I propose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.155.170 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Announcing the Score

A while ago, I changed the announcing section to remove what I saw as a redundancy between it and the previous section. I just received a message about that, and I figured I would mention it here to get a general sense of whether the information (about how you announce the score after the match--ie, your score first, regardless of who won) is needed in back-to-back sections or not. (There was also a question about whether the "Announcing" section was solely concerned with situations lacking an umpire. However, it seemed to me that it was about announcing the score in general, covering any situation, as per the title.) --karogyaswamy

Break Point

Since a break point is related to Tennis Scoring, wouldn't it be logical to include the paragraph below (from the main article 'Tennis'):

A break point occurs if the receiver, not the server, has a game point. It is of importance in professional tennis, since service breaks happen less frequently with professional players. It may happen that the player who is in the lead in the game has more than one chance to score the winning point, even if his opponent should take the next point(s). For example, if the player who is serving has a score of 15-40, the receiver has a double break point. Should the player in the lead take any one of the next two points, he wins the game.

Here are my questions regarding this:

The reason for stating or recording a break point, double break point, or triple break point, still remains unclear, despite the explanation above. Is this term designed to specify a game point for the receiver?

Yes. In other words break point = 30-40 or Advantage to the receiver, double break point = 15-40, and triple break point = 0-40. Dze27 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading some other definitions, it seems possible that the term 'break point' could be just a term to further the esotericism of the sport in general. It doesn't seem important nor imperative to measure how many service games are held or broken during a tournament, career etc.

Would someone please shed some light on this matter?

In "serious" tennis, breaks of serve can be fairly infrequent and often a single break of serve can be the difference in a set, i.e. often a set will be 6-4, with nine holds of serve and one break. Breaks are very important strategically and thus special attention is paid when there is the chance for a break. Note that the chair umpire does not announce "break point" or anything along those lines, it is informational only (for example on a TV broadcast). The players themselves are extremely aware of break points and may alter their strategy (the server might play more conservatively, not wishing to risk having their service game broken on a risky shot that generated an error). BTW, please sign your comments with ~~~~. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask! Dze27 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

15-30-40

The scoring part does not come at all from the clock, it can be traced to the British colonies in India in the 19th century, where a similar game was played by British naval artillery gunners. They used the pound system of their big naval ship guns in order to calculate points in the game. When firing a salute, the first deck fired its 15 pounders, then the second deck fired its 30 pounders, followed by the 3rd decks 40-pounders. This lived on, also they used to play for pence, thus the "weird" 6-6-6 -system. --MoRsE 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, of course, but it needs to be *documented*. Can you give a source for this info. Otherwise, it is so strange that it can't go into the article. Hayford Peirce 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have finally a source, it is the Swedish "Nationalencyklopedin" (Swedish equivalent to Encylopaedia Britannica): On-line edition: [3]. The game was called sphairistike and it also mentions that it might come from the Royal Navy gun calibre system. --MoRsE 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The score derived from Jeu du Paume. I would also like to thank the person who so nicely cleaned it up when I first wrote it because it was poorly worded out.I would like to beleive the Nationalencyklopedin but it is unlikely. They would say that the scoring came from the navy(and is possible) except it is unlikely that sport rules came from an organisement of military weapons on a ship.Many sports have rules and regulations that have been influenced by other sports. Antoinology (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Antoinology

The "original" scoring was 15-30-45, from the four major divisions of a clock, but 15-30-40 was soon substituted because it sounds better (can be pronounced quicker) in French (and possibly in other languages). References: The Guardian, The USTA, the Straight Dope, a book, referencing The Official Encyclopedia of Tennis. David Spector (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"ad-in"

isn't 'ad-in' a tennis scoring term? i came here looking for it, but it's not here. is it applicable? Ensiform 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a tennis term. And, as you say, it should probably be in the article, along with "ad out". Hayford Peirce 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(Score)-All

The article doesn't explain that when the scores are the same for both players/teams, they are said as "fifty-all", "thirty-all". It just says that "forty-all" is said as "deuce".

There seems to be a great bit of confusion in the first part of this article with information about scoring be repeated in two paragraphs. Also, what is the source that these terms for tennis all came from this Jack character?

"Love" for zero is probably not from "l'oeuf"

Michael Quinion in his book POSH* says that it goes back to 1742 and Hoyle's book about card game whist. If he is right the surmises here about Jack (John Lovell) March, around during World War II, is far too late in the history to be a valid explanation.

From POSH it is clear many words have myriad false folk etymologies of considerable persistence, like urban myths. I suggest the Jack March element is a red herring here. "Love" has nothing to do with "l'eouf" and all to do with "playing for love" (that is, for nothing) not for money.

• Port Out, Starboard Home: And Other Language Myths (2004), published in the US as "Ballyhoo, Buckaroo, and Spuds: Ingenious Tales of Words and Their Origins"

Iph 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)IPH

The Dutch phrase "iets voor lof doen", which may have been in popular use at one time, does not in itself mean "to do something for nothing", simply because the word "lof" does not mean "nothing", as the writer of the article suggests. "Lof" is "praise". (Being Dutch, I suppose I do not need to quote a dictionary here). Obviously doing something for praise, implies doing it for no (monetary) profit, so the phrase was probably often used as meaning "to do for nothing".

Still, though the use of words can develop in the most amazing ways, something does not 'feel right' about this explanation. It would require the implied meaning of "lof" (just praise, so "nothing") to be understood in England, where tennis developed into its modern form, and then to expect the English to find a similar sounding word to use for that implied meaning. It all sounds very Cockney (with all due respect there), but not very "tennis".

By the way, user Iph (above) takes it even a step further, and transposes the entire expression, "voor lof" (for praise) into English "for love"(!?)

Is there a quotation to support this view about the Dutch origin of "love" as nil? Marc1966 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Marc1966 - If you read exactly what user Iph wrote above - and being Dutch too I know he is correct - you'll see that "lof" doesn't mean nil (zero) at all. It means "praise". To do something for praise (alone) implies that no prize money is involved, just the honour of participating (or winning). I adjusted the text slightly accordingly. However, unfortunately I cannot provide a source that would corroborate this expression as a possible origin of the tennis score "love". 213.46.105.142 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Created account: Endcourts (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the scoring photo a good one?

I wonder if the photo (showing scoring of Roddick game) is a good example photo; because it says "Game 1 2 3" but really, these are "Set 1 2 3" aren't they? On the other hand, if that's how a tennis scoreboard looks / is done, then that's the way it is and that's actually a good example...

You're looking at it the wrong way. In this picture, "Game" refers to the score of the current game, which is listed below in the same column. Game is merely the column header. Game does not refer to the "1 2 3" in the same row, as they too are column headers for their respective columns, indicated the number of games each player has won in those respective sets (and yes, "1 2 3" are the sets). -Jaardon 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I came here to make the same comment as the unsigned contributor above, i.e. is this a good photo to use given that it appears to say "Game 1 2 3"? I now understand what's going on thanks to Jaardon's explanation, but I'm now more convinced that this photo should be changed for one that is not ambiguous, or just removed. --195.194.120.37 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. An editor should replace it. First of all, the photo is ambiguous. Second, it refers to an absolutely irrelevant game. The picture should perhaps show something important, like the score of a match between Nadal and Djokovic, or Federer vs Murray, not Roddick vs unkown player in an ATP 250 series tournament. I mean, seriously.

Question

With deuce, they normally say "Advantage Mr. Smith", or whatever their name is. But what do they do when the Williams sisters play eachother? of course it's going to be "advantage Ms. Williams" Smartyshoe 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A Lot Less Informative

I am new to tennis scoring and I have to say that this article is pathetic and poorly written; I still do not understand how the scoring works - all Wikipedia has got to say about scoring a match is written in a single sentence:

"Most matches consist of an odd number of sets, the match winner being the player who wins more than half of the sets. The match ends as soon as this winning condition is met. Men's singles matches may consist of five sets (the winner being the first to win three sets), while most women's matches are three sets (the winner being the first to win two sets)."

Can anyone please elaborate this a bit as I guess it's a pretty important article! As usual we have people putting down all sorts of unnecessary (Trivia) information flaking an Encyclopedia article - a separate section or even a simple footnote would suffice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.73.4 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not all the article says about scoring a match: The article is all about scoring a match. That sentence neatly describes how _sets_ are scored. What more do you want on that? Women's tennis is "best of three", Mens is "Best of Five".Robbak (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the above statement saying that the sentence "neatly describes how sets are scored". It patently isn't neat. Ironically, the "best of..." statements given later on are both neater and clearer. I would actually suggest something along the lines of...

Before a tennis match starts, the maximum number of sets to be played is agreed. This is typically 3, though for men's singles matches is often 5, but is always an odd number. Sets are then played until one player/side has won the majority, and are therefore deemed to have won the match. There is no need to play the remaining sets because they cannot effect the result. This means that a match that is "best of 5" sets can finish in 3 if all are won by the same player/side. This is known as winning in "straight sets".

62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) mlang

Additional uses of no-ad scoring

Just a heads up that no-ad scoring has made the major tournaments. In the just finished Australian Open, no-ad scoring was used in the mixed doubles. If this is not a one-off, then a note should be added, even though it is already somewhat weighed down with strange notes....Robbak (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I also added a mention of the "match tiebreak" used in doubles tennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbak (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis

Interwikis are wrong. In French "tie break" is linked, and in Russian "set". It should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.57.160 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's add an example of score interpretation

What I really want to know is, if I see a news item with the scores listed, what does it really mean? For example, "Rafael Nadal beat four-time champion Roger Federer 7-5, 6-7 (3-7), 6-3 in the Hamburg Masters." The first number reflects who's serving, right, so Nadal won three sets in a row? What does the (3-7) mean, in simple terms? Can anybody help out? --Torchpratt (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nadal won sets one, two and four but Federer won set three by 7 games to 3. Nadal wins the match having taken three of the five sets and in reporting the scores Nadal's score in each set is reported first in each group of figures 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No no, that's not it. Nadal won sets 1 and 3. Federer won set 2 on a tie-break, the tie-break score being 3-7. The game score in that set was therefore 6-7 (Nadal's score first). --El Ingles (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What comes after forty?

Everyone knows the score goes 15-30-40 and then the game is won, but less obvious is the correct/standard way for describing the final score in a game. Later in the article it talks about "game-30", there ought to be a specific mention of this convention in the 'Scoring each game' section. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.44.55 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Granted this was asked 4 years ago, but for the sake of clarity I'll go ahead and answer it now for others who may also have this question.

Technically speaking, the score that comes after "40" in a game is 60. For example, if you've won a game 4 points to 2, the game score is 60-30. Since the individual game scores are more or less irrelevant in terms of the match score, most do not know of this and simply use the term "game" for the fourth point, since once you've attained the score of "60" in a game you've won that game and it is tallied to the set score (which is the "score that matters" in terms of who is actually winning the match).

Hopefully that clears that up. I don't have a source off-hand, but as a USTA official I suppose I can claim "expert" status here since this is just a talk page. I'm sure if someone thinks this information should be added to the article I can dig up the relevant citation from the Friend at Court (the USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations). Amity Lane (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In what country?

In what country is the following true, because in Britain I have never heard it before in my life:

"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."

That sounds more like Squash scoring to me. As far as I am aware whoever has the advantage and whoever is serving all the umpire ever says is "Advantage Federer" or "Advantage Miss Williams" or whatever the persons name is....or "Deuce" if the next point is lost 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Functionally" the same

I don't really see anything giving this idea any prominence, no citation, etc. Unless a number of players follow this philosophy, it isn't a terribly notable idea, and some citation would have to be provided to show perhaps some sports writers writing about it.--Crossmr (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While it may not be very notable, it's clearly true and doesn't take up much space, so what's the problem? --Tango (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is not truth, WP:NOT we're not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. We don't add material to articles just because it doesn't hurt anything. There are probably tons of philosophies about various scores in various sports, unless they've become noted, any editor giving prominence to them is violating WP:NPOV under undue weight among other things.--Crossmr (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a philosophy, it's very simple logic, NPOV doesn't come into it. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No reference to why some matches are best of 3 sets vs. best of 5 sets

The opening sentence is confusing with the (typically....) comments. I think mentioning winning 2 out of 3 sets, or 3 out of 5 sets, would help simplify. Also, should there be a mention of the fact that most tournaments are 2 out of 3 sets, while major tournaments are 3 out of 5 for the men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhashton (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

8 game pro-set

Anyone heard of an 8 game pro-set? We used to play these in opening rounds of tournaments when time was tight. At 7 games all, a tie-break was played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhashton (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a one set match? --Tango (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption of the picture

Very nonspecific. Can we say what match this is? 137.205.74.30 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just Googled roddick saulnier 6-0 6-4. It was the 2005 SAP Open final, and the caption is wrong &ndash: there was no third set. 137.205.74.30 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

can i ask something about tennis game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.187.166 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Scoring A Set - 4 Major Championships

I find the below, relating to the use of a tiebreak in the final set, to be repetitive.

This is true in three of the four major tennis championships, all except the United States Open where a tiebreak is played even in the deciding set (fifth set for the men, third set for the women) at 6-6. A tiebreak is not played in the deciding set in the other three majors - the Australian Open, the French Open, and Wimbledon.

As an alternative, I'd suggest...

This is true at three of the four major tennis championships: the Australian Open, the French Open, and Wimbledon. the exception is the US Open, where a tiebreak is played even in the deciding set (the fifth set for men, the third for women).

Losing match while winning more points/games

These two sections need to be restructured. The first one supposedly refers to losing a match while having won more points, while the second one has a title that refers to the same notion, only substituting games for points.

However, when reading the contents, under the "points" section we find also a "games" example, while under the "games" example we find Federer vs. Roddick. I suggest that the example of "6-4, 0-6, 6-4" under "total points won" is either deleted (thus leaving only the Federer vs. Roddick example in the appropriate section) or moved to the next section.

I understand the wish to put a reference to a historical match in the article, but we do not need to mess up the structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.237.192 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture on this page really does not demonstrate the concepts. If a picture could be obtained with a score during a game that would work much better. CitiCat ^♫ 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add a flowchart to explain scoring

The scoring system in tennis is, by far, the most confusing of any modern sport (or any modern game in general). Since it is so far beyond the relative simplicity of any other game scoring, I'd like to request/recommend that a flowchart be created for the scoring system. This will help a lot of people understand it a lot faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.224.196 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Love" (0), 15 (1), 30 (2), 40 (3), game (4) - unless you're tied at 30 (or beyond) then it's deuce, or advantage (ahead by a point), as you have to get to at least 40 and also win by two. Is that what you mean by a "flowchart"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that a "flowchart" for tennis scoring would essentially be a finite-state machine, looking something like:

0-0  -> 15-0  -> 30-0  -> 40-0 -> GS
  |       |        |        |
  v       v        v        v
0-15 -> 15-15 -> 30-15 -> 40-15 -> GS
  |       |        |        |
  v       v        v        v
0-30 -> 15-30 -> 30-30 -> 40-30 -> GS
  |       |        |        |
  v       v        v        v
0-40 -> 15-40 -> 30-40 -> deuce ->  AS -> GS
  |       |        |        |        |
  v       v        v        v        v
 GR      GR       GR       AR   -> deuce
                            |
                            v
                           GR

Where the horizontal arrows are "point to server", the verticals are "point to receiver", and the second "deuce" is actually a loop to the first one. (Hard to show that in ASCII, sorry.) That's mostly just to belabour the obvious, though: only the bottom right corner is anything but trivial.

The key to understanding tennis scoring is that the general rule is "win a game (set) by at least two clear points (games)", and that the integers have weird names when it comes to counting points in games... 84.203.33.248 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a finite-state machine that describes tennis scoring: http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2014/08/scoring-tennis-using-finite-state.html Rich (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Games in a set

The introduction states that a set "consists of a number of games (typically six)". That's obviously not true, since a set only consists of six games when it's won 6-0! Shouldn't it be edited to say that six games must typically be won in order to win the set? Or, more accurately, that one must win at least six games in order to win a set? Or even that a set consists of between 6 and 12 games, with a tiebreak typically played if the score is still even? Mattus27 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Receiving serve

The second last paragraph of the section titled "Scoring a Set" contains the following sentence: "Players of the receiving team receive the serve on alternating points, however, except that in mixed doubles the player who is of the same sex as the server will always receive."

If this is saying what I think it's saying (i.e. that the man will always receive the opposing man's serve on both courts and the woman vice versa), then it's obviously wrong. Or am I misunderstanding it? If this is the case, then perhaps it needs to be made clearer.

 Done I've removed the erroneous statement and added a clarification regarding receiver position(s) in doubles. Hopefully it's much clearer now. For the record, receivers are never decided based on gender but instead declare which side of the court they will receive on for the duration of the set at the start of their first receiving game of said set. Amity Lane (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This probably needs to be changed again. While true for the highest levels of pro tennis while searching through every university rules I could find they ALL have the rule that gender always serves to the same gender (at deuce or game point, and at 3–3 in tiebreaks. note: this was accidentally left out on first posting). Mixed doubles is rare in the pros so by far the vast majority of rules would have been more accurate with the previous version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be different in other countries, but here in the USA Mixed Doubles is nonexistent in collegiate play (in fact, in many collegiate divisions the male and female tennis seasons are at different times of the year entirely). In both club-level and pro-level tennis, receivers are decided on position as I stated previously. Do you have some sources for this gender-segregated receiving thing? I'm quite interested to find out more about it. Amity Lane (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In the US there are plenty of universities that play at the intramural level. And as I corrected myself above, it's only at certain points of the set that it must be gender vs same gender. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Intramural sports rarely follow typical rules (half-court basketball, flag football, etc.) so I'm not sure something like this should be included. This whole gender thing seems to be more of a house rule than anything actually codified. For the record though, in no-ad scoring the receiving team does get to choose on which side they will receive irrespective of the score when the game score is 40-40 (deuce) and thus could potentially match gender-for-gender if they so chose (though the most common decision is to have the best player on the receiving team return, which is typically the male in mixed doubles matches). However, it's not an actual "rule". Amity Lane (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually per the ITF yes it is a rule. [4] Mixed double game points are always gender to same gender. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding no-ad, but you've reached an incorrect conclusion. No-ad scoring is very much a minority "alternative" scoring system, so "always" is incorrect. The vast majority of club, collegiate, and professional tennis play does not use this scoring system. I appreciate you bringing this to light, but I fear that presenting this as "standard practice" is misleading. If anywhere, this gender-to-gender thing should be placed in the no-ad section. Amity Lane (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, though World team tennis does and it also uses this ITF rule. I'm in the California area and Cal State Long Beach uses this rule and Cal State Northridge uses this rule and San Francisco State uses this rule. It's pretty common here. My understanding is that most of the USTA Junior events use this rule also. But you are probably right in that it should be in the no-ad section. By the way, welcome to wikipedia :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No-ad scoring tends to be more popular in situations where you want to decrease match length, and things like World TeamTennis (which is essentially all unofficial exhibition, and uses their own weird scoring system for matches) and intramural sports (again technically unofficial) certainly benefit from that in terms of spectator interest and court turn-around time. It's also frequently used in USTA tournament consolation rounds ("backdraws"), and can occasionally be used for main-draw matches if needed due to limited number of courts. Still though, it's the exception rather than the rule (much like "pro-set" matches are). Amity Lane (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's as rare as you make it sound. You yourself said mixed doubles is not played intercollegiately but all these universities seem to have specific rules laid out for intramural play and many use no-ad. So Mixed doubles with set rules are rare. But when it is played with rules we have the 4 Majors that play with no specific gender rules. Not sure about the Hopman Cup but they play mixed doubles. USTA jr's, often use the gender vs same gender rules on game points. So do intramural sports at universities. I've gone to the "Special Olympics" and they use no-ad mixed doubles also. My point is that other than playing at your local park or condo, mixed doubles is rare. But when it is played under a set of rules it is not uncommon to see it played no-ad. This article is a "'tennis scoring article'", not a "'professional tennis scoring article'" so we have to include all "'common'" forms of rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they need to be included, but "non-standard" rules shouldn't be used in the main article body. They should be kept together in their own separate sections, as they are alternative methods of scoring. Also, I feel that you're discounting the club-play level (in other words, local amateur tournament play such as USTA) which in all likelihood contains the vast majority of mixed doubles matches played in the US. Regardless, all this is moot...no-ad scoring is not part of standard scoring rules and your statement in the article that "[...] in standard mixed doubles play, gender always serves to the same gender [...]" is not accurate. Please see ITF Rules of Tennis, Page 7, Rule #15. I've gone ahead and boldly moved the sentence to the no-ad section and sourced it in the ITF rules. This way the information is still contained in the article yet does not give the impression that gender-to-gender receiving is the "standard rule". Hopefully you can agree with that? Amity Lane (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

More than basic game and set scoring

Tennis scoring includes a lot more than basic game and set scoring, which is all that seems to be described here currently. It includes, for example, the overall structure, the tournament, which I've just added.

In large tournaments, scoring is determined (judged) not by the players, but by umpires/referees, sometimes assisted by linesmen and others. Ballboys/ballgirls may assist on the field of play, but do not participate in scoring. Automated line-calling systems (Cyclops, Hawk-eye) may assist umpires, may be shown to home TV audiences, and/or may be consulted during challenges. There are usually rules related to such challenges, and a limit to their number. Players are usually required to serve on or behind a serving line and not to step in front of that line before the racket hits the ball--a violation of this rule is called a foot fault. When the ball hits a player's body, that is a foul. When any part of a player's body touches the net while the ball is in play, a fault has occurred.

All such faults need to be included in this article.

There may be customized rules covering the judging of score which are announced in advance for each tournament. Some of these customizations have already been described. An example of another is the peculiarity of the French Open in disallowing Hawk-eye to be used (where installed) in line judging (the reason being that its clay playing surfaces usually retain a visible impression of the impact of each ball bounce). David Spector (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AAlternate scoring system

Seems to me I recall some effort to revise the scoring system to the more logical 0-1-2-3-duece-advantage system. Perhaps this was limited to high school and/or college tennis, although having recently been at a college tennis tournament, I know they use the love-15-30-40 system. However, if there was some effort to revise the scoring system, shouldn't there be some mention of this? Wschart (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Great deal of redundancy

Is it just me, or is there a heap ton of redundancy in this article? I mean, everything about the tiebreak system is described at least twice within the set scoring section. It's in severe need of a trim! oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Coming to this years later - I fully agree with Oknazevad and I'd guess it's probably got much worse since 2015. The tiebreak sections are a mess - information is repeated and/or out-of-date. I think the whole article is in need of a clean-up / reorganization 31.124.45.250 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Coin denominations

Another theory regarding the origin of the scores 15, 30, 40 is that they are related to coin denominations - see e.g. 81.191.184.223 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Determining who is placed on top/bottom in box score?

What is the process for determining which player/team is put on top, and which player/team is put on bottom, of the box score? I was thinking it might be seeding, but I've seen the higher seed both either on top or bottom. Is it based on who serves first in the first set? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAK4Blizzard (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Inventor

Here (https://books.google.fr/books?id=Z1cr577EpcUC&pg=PT365&lpg=PT365&dq=Copenhague+1992,+Aki+Rahunen++Peter+Nyborg&source=bl&ots=jNDp2gSl7-&sig=pfiJXoUfBUsQfVPifHu4SGebS0g&hl=fr&ei=cPDZTpbZIdCChQeKpvy3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Copenhague%201992%2C%20Aki%20Rahunen%20%20Peter%20Nyborg&f=false) it says that it was one Peter John who "based on Van Alen's theme" devised 12-points tiebreaker, not Van Alen. This needs further research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.121.180 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Real Tennis

It might be worth pointing out:

Real Tennis uses 15,30,40, game scoring with love and deuce.

Real Tennis permits a second serve if the first is a fault which is carried onto lawn tennis. It also allows a point to be declared a let if one player was disadvantaged. Though as the serve is played off the penthouse a serve that clips the net would be a fault.

Real Tennis the score is read with the score of the last player to win a point first. So 30 - Love can be be followed by 15 - 30.

In Real Tennis serves change on chases. Serve can change multiple times in a game or not change for several. It does not have the concept a break of serve and does not require a two game lead to win a set. Real Tennis has therefore never needed to invent the tie break.

Real Tennis sets are usually 6 games - unless agreed otherwise.

Service is always from the same end - player changes ends only after the receiver lays a chase.

In real tennis the serve must bounce on the service penthouse - to the server's left - and land in the service box also on that side of the court - service does not change sides.

In real tennis doubles one player on a team serves, or receives serve, for the whole of a game. With the player in a team swapping at the end of each game. If the wrong player serves or receives they lose the point -except that if a serve lands beyond the centre line but within the service box, the other receiver may play it.

For example if Athos and Porthos are playing Aramis and D'Artagnan, Athos might start serving to Aramis. If Aramis lays a chase and therefore gains serve, he serves to Athos. At the end of the game D'Artagnan serves to Porthos and so on. Athos never serves to - or receives serve - from D'Artagnan and neither does Aramis and Porthos.

In modern real tennis all handicap games are played as 40-all not deuce. 40-all is game point and the next point won wins the game. Equivalent to no-ad

Real Tennis handicaps often have the stronger player needing to win more than 4 points. A handicap of Owe 15 means the stronger player needs to win 5 points so starts on owe 15 and moves to love when they win their first point.

The modern real tennis handicap system was devised at the Leamington club in around the 1970s and is now used worldwide and maintained by T&RA Handicaps Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.80.20 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm Confused about the numbers in parentheses listed in scores.

I didn't see in the article how to interpret a number in parentheses. For example, in the Fox News story about the Wimbledon match between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, the scores were listed as:

"The sets were 7-6 (5), 1-6, 7-6 (4), 4-6 and 13-12 (3). The final lasted nearly five hours, longer than any other Wimbledon final."

What are the numbers I parentheses telling us? I am not, obviously, a tennis pro; just confused, and this article was no help unless I missed something!

Stargzer (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

This article is WAY too difficult to read!

All of the information in this article is important and relevant.

But, to extract the most basic information — such as: What are the rules for scoring the tiebreaker in each of the four Grand Slam tournaments — it is WAY too difficult to find where this incredibly simple information is located among the dense verbiage.

Are tiebreak rules identical in all four Grand Slam tournaments? I think so. But I'm not sure the article EVER states this clearly.

Sure: Include all the same information. BUT: Make the most important information much easier to locate and read.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:817E:94F9:2ADA:1B00 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to be obscure!

The sentence "If the tiebreak score gets to 6–6, then whichever player to win the best of two points wins the set." is utterly unclear, since "win the best of two points" is never explained.

(The phrase is referred to earlier in the article. But it is never explained.)

But all you have to say is "If the tiebreak score gets to 6–6, then whichever player first reaches a score that is two points more than the opponent's score wins the set."198.184.30.206 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Winning a set 6-5

It seems that in the early Wimbledon championships, a set could be won 6-5 except in the Challenge Round. See 1877 Wimbledon Championship#Rules: "The first player to win six games wins the set with 'sudden death' occurring at five games all except for the final, when a lead of two games in each set is necessary." I don't know whether the game played at 5-5 was an ordinary service game or any special rules applied; I doubt the phrase "sudden death" was used by the gentlemen of 1877. jnestorius^(talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Compare

• 1878 Wimbledon Championship – Singles, where the Challenge Round was 7-5 6-1 9-7 but one quarterfinal was 6-4 3-6 1-6 6-3 5-6
• 1883 Wimbledon Championship – Singles, various 6-5 in the early rounds
• 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles / 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles / 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Men's doubles, all sets won by 2 games or more. I suggest 1884 Wimbledon Championships should note this change.

jnestorius^(talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Some research reveals to me that when one player goes past 6 games this is called an advantage set, today as in 1877. The wording of the 1877 rule was "Each match will be the best of five sets, without advantage sets except in the final tie." Further references for the above points:

• The first advantage set actually played was in the 1878 final.
• The first year in which advantage sets were played before the final was 1884.

It would be interesting to know whether matches without advantage sets were played elsewhere before the adoption of tie-breaks.

jnestorius^(talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References