|
|
 |
|
Everyone agrees!... By Jim Reffkin
July 2003
Everyone agrees that the antiquated scoring system our sport now uses; love,
15, 30, etc., makes no sense whatsoever, and if anything, serves as an
obstacle for a typical sports fan watching on television or playing for the first
time.
Someone please tell me why we have not changed this archaic scoring? Do we
still think that we are so elite that we do not want people to understand our
game and thereby prevent them from playing or watching? Come to think of it, why
do tournament players continuously lose tract of the score, and almost never
call the score out loud when they are supposed to?
Everyone agrees, we are currently making every effort to "grow the game." So
lets not baffle the average sports fan and demand he "study" our game to
appreciate its importance in history. Speaking of history, have you ever tried to
find out why there is love then 15 then 30 then 40? Forget about it, because no
one seems to know, but be sure the average sports fan thinks its silly and
couldn't care less. They just want to know who is winning and by how much. Can't
we make it a little easier to find out?
Everyone agrees we should change, so like every other sport, I am suggesting
numerical numbers. Help me here, is there any reason why we can't keep this
simple enough that children and adults can immediately understand when they are
first learning, or first watching as a spectator. Please keep in mind, we are
changing nothing here. We are not talking about no-ad scoring, you still need
four points to win a game, and you still need to be ahead by two.
Gene Scott in a recent editorial in Tennis Week described our scoring as a
"tedious turnoff" and an "example of the game's ongoing mindlessness."
Alan Schwartz, the current USTA President, was quoted in the Chicago Tribune
and agrees we must change our archaic nonsensical scoring.
Think about it, simply on the basis of the needless time consuming
explanation we must give to beginning players, I do not think there is a single teaching
professional who does not agree with my suggestion. Universally, all coaches,
instructors and teaching professionals currently suffer a waste of time
explaining the absurd anachronism our tennis governing bodies have left us with.
Last year, in Tucson's most important adult tournament, the city tennis
championship, I piloted this concept. I umpired the match from the usual umpire
stand with a considerable number of people watching, including a reporter from
the Tucson Citizen. Amazing, not only did the spectators pick up on it very
quickly, but they also appreciated the excitement of the lengthy games that were
now numerically unfolding. We had games go into double digits: 10-8 and even
11-9.
On the other hand, with the traditional archaic scoring, the average
spectator usually does not understand, or can accurately keep track of the length of a
game, so it becomes an impatient "what a long game." This happens because no
one - except the chair umpire - ever has a running total of how many points
are played in each of the games. The result is, with numeric scoring, everyone,
especially the sportswriters, understand and appreciate the excitement and
significance of the lengthy games.
Everyone may agree, but this does not mean it will happen. Even though the
WTA and ATP have been encouraging the USTA to promote the game more - this
change would be a no-brainer - my experience in pioneering change tells me talk is
cheap, so when you believe in something and when the time is right and
everyone agrees - "just do it."
So I hope Alan Schwartz agrees, because with no money, little effort and
without making any changes on how our game is played, our new USTA President has
the opportunity to truly grow the game of tennis. I suggest the USTA lead the
global tennis community by introducing in some capacity, hopefully somewhere at
the US Open, possibly in the early rounds or in the qualifier, this long
overdue change.
Keep in mind, in order for us to eliminate the "tedious turnoff" Gene Scott
describes, and to impact tennis awareness in the general population, it must
happen at an event that will have chair umpires and broad television coverage.
There are some glitches, but not insurmountable. So lets forget about deuce and
ad, lets think he or she won 4-1 or it was a longer game at 8-6. And here is
an interesting question, does anyone know the record of how many points were
played in one game?
Please e-mail me your feedback at JREFFKIN@AOL.COM
|
|
|
|
