Best-of-five set matches were in the crosshairs at this labor-intensive US Open. Is no-ad scoring the answer?

Best-of-five set matches were back in reformers’ crosshairs during this labor-intensive US Open. But is there a better solution than cutting back to best-of-three?

In this edition of The Rally, TENNIS.com writers Steve Tignor and Jon Levey discuss another option.

Hi Jon,

The debate about whether the men should continue to play best-of-five set matches at the majors is a long-running one. As anyone who has seen a video of the flannel-slacked gentleman players of yesteryear knows, the sport is a lot more physical than it was when the scoring system was imported from court tennis for the first Wimbledon in 1877. At the same time, evolving ideas about gender equality now leave many people wondering why the men play best-of-five and the women only play best-of-three.

I get it. Outside of the later rounds at the majors, it’s the rare best-of-five match that I’ll watch from start to finish. And when I hear someone call best-of-five “the ultimate test in tennis,” part of me wants to respond, “So why don’t the women get to take the same test?”

That said, best-of-five is still sacrosanct to me. A Slam that’s only best-of-three wouldn’t be a Slam in my mind. That may not be logical, because I don’t feel the same way about the women’s majors. And if the men had played best-of-three from the beginning, I doubt I would be campaigning for them to stay out there longer. But the fact is, after 148 years of best-of-five, anything less would seem…miniature, not grand.

Outside of the later rounds at the majors, it’s the rare best-of-five match that I’ll watch from start to finish.

Normally, I’m OK with the havoc that best-of-five plays with schedules, and the severe physical test it subjects players to. The majors still bring out the best in the top guys; the matches they produce have only grown more epic; and the format hasn’t derailed them with injuries or shortened their careers.

But this US Open has been especially heavy on five-setters, and this past weekend it took a toll. Three players—Flavio Cobolli, Kamil Majchrzak, and Daniel Altmaier—had to retire on Saturday after winning marathons on Thursday. Tommy Paul surely ran out of gas on Saturday night because he was playing his second wee-hour five-setter in a row. And the player who beat him, Alexander Bublik, had the same thing happen against Jannik Sinner.

Should we change the rules because these guys lost? Of course not. But I know that, while you’re good with best-of-five, you feel like men’s Slam matches in general are too long. And I know you’ve thought about a different solution for a while now.

Maybe we can talk about it here.

Hi Steve,

Like you, I’m a tennis traditionalist at heart. I won’t break out the flannel slacks, but I will string my racquet with natural gut from time to time, and I think using a 10-point match tiebreaker in lieu of a deciding set is an abomination. Whether a seesaw back-and-forth or from-the-brink comeback, the best-of-five format has given us iconic moments in the sport. It shouldn’t go anywhere.

But it could use some refinement. As you pointed out, the game is so physical now. Players are 24/7 machines and equipment has come a long way since everything was organic. Playing protracted baseline warfare often turns best-of-five into a four-hour battle of attrition. Even when a player wins, he leaves so much on the court that he’s wasted for the next match.

So how do we lessen the toll of the matches while keeping the greatness of five-setters?

Adopt no-ad scoring.

The strategy and winner-take-all aspect of the no-ad point would add another element of suspense to the match.

Eliminating deuce games puts a cap on the maximum number of points that can be played in a game (7), and essentially a set. Epic tiebreakers like the one Taylor Townsend and Barbora Krejcikova played on Sunday can throw a monkey wrench into that, but those are rare—and awesome. Fewer points and shorter matches mean less player wear-and-tear.

Let’s face it, it’s not as though tennis-game scoring is a Swiss watch. To the uninitiated, the format is hardly logical (“Why isn’t it 45?”). Extended deuce games can be dramatic, but also add fat to the match and mileage to the players. And to what end? You arrive at the same place.

Besides the practicality, from an entertainment standpoint no-ad also makes tennis an easier watch. The fifth set is great theater, but can be a slog to get to. Sporting events approaching five hours are a tough sell, especially for the smartphone generation. Plus, the strategy and winner-take-all aspect of the no-ad point would add another element of suspense to the match.

You brought up the fact that women don’t play best-of-five, which some find unfair in the equal prize money debate. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole here, but let me ask you: With a condensed, no-ad format, why couldn’t women also play best-of-five?

Jon,

I’ll confess that when you first brought this idea up to me, I didn’t really like it. Or, I should say, I didn’t think many other people in tennis would like it. I’ve been surprised over the years that no-ad hasn’t been talked about more when the subject of shortening matches comes up. Even progressive types who want the men to play best-of-three at the Slams don’t promote no-ad.

The concept of deuce—that traditional “haven” which is unique to tennis and produces so much back-and-forth in matches—dies hard among the sport’s devotees. Jimmy Van Alen, inventor of the tiebreaker, knew that fact well. It took him a couple of decades to convince the powers-that-be to drop what he called those “damnable deuce games” that made sets go to 10-10, 20-20, 30-30—even 70-68—and made tournament directors like himself tear their hair out.

Would the time savings from no-ad be enough to make it worth changing the scoring system we’ve always known?

I’m not as knee-jerk against no-ad in part because I played it in high school and college in the early 1990s. (After going back to deuce, the college game in the States has more recently returned to no-ad, without any major issues that I know of.)

Some thoughts on the pros and cons:

• Pro: No-ad gives a match a sense of constant forward motion; every point moves the score ahead. The static back-and-forth that can be created by a long deuce game—and which leaves fans waiting impatiently at stadium entrances—is eliminated.
• Pro: While it moves the score forward more quickly, no-ad maintains the crucial concept of the “big point” that’s so dear to tennis. Every 3-all point, where a game can be decided with one swing, is massive.
• Possible con: No-ad may swing things further in favor of big servers, who can more easily win those 3-all points.
• Possible con: If you like, or are just used to, the slower-building dramas that long deuce games produce, no-ad can feel like gimmicky turbo-tennis.
• Possible con/possible pro: Before reading your first entry here, I wondered if it would be weird to have the men play best-of-five with no-ad scoring, and the women play best-of-three with deuce scoring. But I like your solution: No-ad might make it feasible to have the women also play best-of-five as well.

Which brings me to a question:

As you said, no-ad limits the number of points that can be played—that’s a positive. To me, the next thing to know would be: How many points would it eliminate, and how much time would it save, on average?

In this year’s epic Roland Garros final, Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz played 56 games, and 352 points in those games (they played 33 more points in the three tiebreakers). With no-ad, the maximum number of points they could have played in 56 games is 40 more than that, 392. From what I can find online, they played “at least five deuce games,” and the first game of the match went to five deuces. No-ad would have made their final shorter than the five hours and 29 minutes it ultimately lasted, but by how much?

Would the time savings from no-ad be enough to make it worth changing the scoring system we’ve always known?

And one more question for the road: From a fan standpoint, do you like watching matches with no-ad more than deuce scoring?

Steve,

As a spectator, I actually do like watching no-ad scoring. It’s propulsive and adds another element of strategy. As a player? Not so much. Those pressure points stress me out.

I wondered how your college experience may color your feelings on no-ad scoring. When I pose the concept of using it at the pro level to tennis lifers, the response is admittedly mixed. Almost all acknowledge the issues we discussed in our first exchange, and then settle into one of two camps:

1. I like it, but it’s a tough sell.
2. Get your hands off my sport.

Such is tennis—glacial when it comes to adopting new ideas. Thank goodness Van Alen wasn’t easily discouraged. Could you imagine if we didn’t have the tiebreaker? At this point it’s inconceivable.

No-ad could certainly use a champion like Van Alen. As you pointed out, it’s alive and well in college tennis, but team competition is a different animal. In my informal straw-polling, the supporters—including a few former touring pros still heavily involved in the game—think it needs to start first at the lower ranks. Break it in with juniors and work its way up to Challengers and 250-level events.

Ultimately, tennis being tennis, no-ad implementation may require reaching critical mass.

This would condition players to no-ad, as well as build the data required to tip over a sacred cow. There have been obvious instances where it would have shortened matches, such as the 13-deuce, 32-point game in the 2023 Wimbledon final between Carlos Alcaraz and Novak Djokovic that lasted nearly a half-hour; as well as the 2022 Australian Open Final between Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev that had a 1.5 hour second set and 59 total deuce points. But one-offs are one thing—the most persuasive argument would be the cumulative effects of reduced match time and points played, and a healthier and happier workforce.

It would also address some of your potential cons. It’s funny you say that servers would have the advantage; I heard the opposite. No less an authority than Andre Agassi (I think) felt that it would help returners since they only needed to win one point instead of at least two in a row.

Ultimately, tennis being tennis, no-ad implementation may require reaching critical mass. It took John Isner’s comically-long Wimbledon matches for the remaining Slams to finally join the US Open and institute final-set tiebreakers—even those were haphazardly implemented. Perhaps the sport needs to endure a few walkover Grand Slam finals or a rash of top player injuries before it takes action.

You and I are old enough to remember players sitting for a changeover after the first game of every set. In retrospect, doing away with the tradition was a no-brainer. Perhaps someday people feel the same about no-ad scoring.