This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
In what country is the following true, because in Britain I have never heard it before in my life:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very nonspecific. Can we say what match this is? 137.205.74.30 ( talk) 22:37, 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Another theory regarding the origin of the scores 15, 30, 40 is that they are related to coin denominations - see e.g. [1] 81.191.184.223 ( talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 didn't see in the article how to interpret a number in parentheses. For example, in the Fox News story
[1] 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
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)
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)
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
jnestorius( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
In what country is the following true, because in Britain I have never heard it before in my life:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very nonspecific. Can we say what match this is? 137.205.74.30 ( talk) 22:37, 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Another theory regarding the origin of the scores 15, 30, 40 is that they are related to coin denominations - see e.g. [1] 81.191.184.223 ( talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 didn't see in the article how to interpret a number in parentheses. For example, in the Fox News story
[1] 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
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)
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)
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
jnestorius( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)