[Howard]

I realize this sort of thing is heresy to tennis purists, but so was the tie-breaker when it was first introduced and that’s worked out pretty well. Furthermore, the no-ad system is not an unknown factor because it’s been used extensively in men’s doubles with mostly positive effects. Those effects being:
1) Shorter matches (usually, but not always, good)
2) More dramatic moments (always good)

And the stats I’ve seen indicate that the higher ranked/seeded teams win at about the same percentage that they did with conventional scoring, so it shouldn’t change the outcome of most matches and overall rankings. Of course, I’m not in favor of a super tiebreak instead of a third set for singles, but I think no-ad is something that should be considered, at least for non-Grand Slam events.

Just wondered what others here think of it.

 

[Bobby]

I don't really see the point. Why should the matches be shorter anyway, especially in the best of three set smaller tournaments. I think it's more dramatic to see a long game where it goes from ad to deuce and back.

I just think that the current scoring is good. What you are suggesting is the same as asking why a football match lasts 90 minutes and not 85 minutes. Or why the penalties in ice hockey are usually two minutes and not 2.5 minutes long.