Tennis. A game steeped in tradition with a scoring method to match. I know the scoring method in tennis is known and accepted by all the players but I question whether the method of scoring is adequate or even fair in this modern day.
In order to win a tennis match a player has to first win a game by two clear points, then win two more games than the opponent to win a set and then has to win more sets than the opponent. But even if a player wins 3 sets to 2 that player could have LOST more games than the opponent and probably lost more points as well.
In any contest the winner is the person who gains the most points, runs, goals etc. But this doesn’t apply to tennis or indeed table tennis.
Wimbledon June 1999 - Jim Courier beat Sjeng Schalken 3 sets to 2, that is 7-6, 3-6, 3-6, 7-5, 13-11. Thus Courier won 33 games and Schalken won 34 games. I’ve no idea how many points each player won but did the current scoring method find the better player? The better player being the one who won the most number of points or at least games. The answer has to be NO!
This is not an isolated incident as Wimbledon 2000 threw up a number of such cases. Although this sort of anomaly is less evident in women’s tennis, as they only play 3 sets.
It is time that the LTA took a look at the scoring method and devised some way to award the match to the player who wins most points or at least the most number of games.