Talk:Tennis scoring system

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed the introduction based on your comments, and I also simplified a bit.  Please comment if you have further suggestions. JJ 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  For that matter, "fifteen-all" is the functional equivalent of deuce.  And so is "zero-all".  It's gobbledy-gook and should be removed. Hayford Peirce 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifteen-all is not a functional equivalent of deuce or thirty-all because at fifteen-all, if you win two straight points then you do not win the game. The equivalence of thirty-all and deuce is this: there have to be at least two more points played in the game, and if one player wins the next two points, they win the game, and if the players split the next two points, then the score is deuce. While it's not essential to the article, I would support leaving it in, perhaps with a bit clearer explanation attached (that it's an observation about the mechanics of game scoring only). The article is already quite comprehensive, and it's an interesting quirk of the scoring system that one does not always notice at first. Dze27 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Be bold guys. --86.146.75.221 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thrity All

message: 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? 
: Yes. In other words break point = 30-40 or Advantage to the receiver, double break point = 15-40, and triple break point = 0-40. Dze27 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In "serious" tennis, breaks of serve can be fairly infrequent and often a single break of serve can be the difference in a set, i.e. often a set will be 6-4, with nine holds of serve and one break. Breaks are very important strategically and thus special attention is paid when there is the chance for a break. Note that the chair umpire does not announce "break point" or anything along those lines, it is informational only (for example on a TV broadcast). The players themselves are extremely aware of break points and may alter their strategy (the server might play more conservatively, not wishing to risk having their service game broken on a risky shot that generated an error). BTW, please sign your comments with ~~~~. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask! Dze27 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are my questions regarding this: 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is interesting, of course, but it needs to be *documented*.  Can you give a source for this info.  Otherwise, it is so strange that it can't go into the article. Hayford Peirce 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have finally a source, it is the Swedish "Nationalencyklopedin" (Swedish equivalent to Encylopaedia Britannica): On-line edition: . The game was called sphairistike and it also mentions that it might come from the Royal Navy gun calibre system. --MoRsE 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  15-30-40 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it is indeed a tennis term.  And, as you say, it should probably be in the article, along with "ad out". Hayford Peirce 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ad-in" 

message: 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.
* Port Out, Starboard Home: And Other Language Myths (2004), published in the US as "Ballyhoo, Buckaroo, and Spuds: Ingenious Tales of Words and Their Origins"
Iph 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Love" for zero is probably '''not''' from "l'oeuf" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the scoring photo a good one? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is not all the article says about scoring a match: The article is all about scoring a match. That sentence neatly describes how _sets_ are scored. What more do you want on that? Women's tennis is "best of three", Mens is "Best of Five".Robbak (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Lot Less Informative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional uses of no-ad scoring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interwikis 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nadal won sets one, two and four but Federer won set three by 7 games to 3. Nadal wins the match having taken three of the five sets and in reporting the scores Nadal's score in each set is reported first in each group of figures 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No no, that's not it. Nadal won sets 1 and 3. Federer won set 2 on a tie-break, the tie-break score being 3-7. The game score in that set was therefore 6-7 (Nadal's score first). --El Ingles (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's add an example of score interpretation 

message: In what country is the following true, because in Britain I have never heard it before in my life:
:"When the server is the player with the advantage, the score is stated by him before the next point as "advantage in." When the server's opponent has the advantage, the server states the score as "advantage out." These phrases are sometimes shortened to "ad in" and "ad out."
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)
thread_title: In what country?

message: 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)
replies: text: While it may not be very notable, it's clearly true and doesn't take up much space, so what's the problem? --Tango (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is not truth, WP:NOT we're not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. We don't add material to articles just because it doesn't hurt anything. There are probably tons of philosophies about various scores in various sports, unless they've become noted, any editor giving prominence to them is violating WP:NPOV under undue weight among other things.--Crossmr (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a philosophy, it's very simple logic, NPOV doesn't come into it. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Functionally" the same 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No reference to why some matches are best of 3 sets vs. best of 5 sets 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a one set match? --Tango (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 game pro-set 

message: Very nonspecific. Can we say what match this is? 137.205.74.30 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Googled roddick saulnier 6-0 6-4. It was the 2005 SAP Open final, and the caption is wrong &ndash: there was no third set. 137.205.74.30 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption of the picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Losing match while winning more points/games 

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: "Love" (0), 15 (1), 30 (2), 40 (3), game (4) - unless you're tied at 30 (or beyond) then it's deuce, or advantage (ahead by a point), as you have to get to at least 40 and also win by two. Is that what you mean by a "flowchart"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Here's a finite-state machine that describes tennis scoring: http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2014/08/scoring-tennis-using-finite-state.html Rich (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a flowchart to explain scoring 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games in a set  

message: 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.
: I've removed the erroneous statement and added a clarification regarding receiver position(s) in doubles. Hopefully it's much clearer now. For the record, receivers are never decided based on gender but instead declare which side of the court they will receive on for the duration of the set at the start of their first receiving game of said set. Amity Lane (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably needs to be changed again. While true for the highest levels of pro tennis while searching through every university rules I could find they ALL have the rule that gender always serves to the same gender (at deuce or game point, and at 3–3 in tiebreaks. note: this was accidentally left out on first posting). Mixed doubles is rare in the pros so by far the vast majority of rules would have been more accurate with the previous version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it may be different in other countries, but here in the USA Mixed Doubles is nonexistent in collegiate play (in fact, in many collegiate divisions the male and female tennis seasons are at different times of the year entirely). In both club-level and pro-level tennis, receivers are decided on position as I stated previously. Do you have some sources for this gender-segregated receiving thing? I'm quite interested to find out more about it. Amity Lane (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US there are plenty of universities that play at the intramural level. And as I corrected myself above, it's only at certain points of the set that it must be gender vs same gender. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Intramural sports rarely follow typical rules (half-court basketball, flag football, etc.) so I'm not sure something like this should be included. This whole gender thing seems to be more of a house rule than anything actually codified. For the record though, in no-ad scoring the receiving team does get to choose on which side they will receive irrespective of the score when the game score is 40-40 (deuce) and thus could potentially match gender-for-gender if they so chose (though the most common decision is to have the best player on the receiving team return, which is typically the male in mixed doubles matches). However, it's not an actual "rule". Amity Lane (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually per the ITF yes it is a rule.  Mixed double game points are always gender to same gender. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected regarding no-ad, but you've reached an incorrect conclusion. No-ad scoring is very much a minority "alternative" scoring system, so "always" is incorrect. The vast majority of club, collegiate, and professional tennis play does not use this scoring system. I appreciate you bringing this to light, but I fear that presenting this as "standard practice" is misleading. If anywhere, this gender-to-gender thing should be placed in the no-ad section. Amity Lane (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, though World team tennis does and it also uses this ITF rule. I'm in the California area and Cal State Long Beach uses this rule and Cal State Northridge uses this rule and San Francisco State uses this rule. It's pretty common here. My understanding is that most of the USTA Junior events use this rule also. But you are probably right in that it should be in the no-ad section. By the way, welcome to wikipedia :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No-ad scoring tends to be more popular in situations where you want to decrease match length, and things like World TeamTennis (which is essentially all unofficial exhibition, and uses their own weird scoring system for matches) and intramural sports (again technically unofficial) certainly benefit from that in terms of spectator interest and court turn-around time. It's also frequently used in USTA tournament consolation rounds ("backdraws"), and can occasionally be used for main-draw matches if needed due to limited number of courts. Still though, it's the exception rather than the rule (much like "pro-set" matches are). Amity Lane (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure it's as rare as you make it sound. You yourself said mixed doubles is not played intercollegiately but all these universities seem to have specific rules laid out for intramural play and many use no-ad. So Mixed doubles with set rules are rare. But when it is played with rules we have the 4 Majors that play with no specific gender rules. Not sure about the Hopman Cup but they play mixed doubles. USTA jr's, often use the gender vs same gender rules on game points. So do intramural sports at universities. I've gone to the "Special Olympics" and they use no-ad mixed doubles also. My point is that other than playing at your local park or condo, mixed doubles is rare. But when it is played under a set of rules it is not uncommon to see it played no-ad. This article is a "'tennis scoring article'", not a "'professional tennis scoring article'" so we have to include all "'common'" forms of rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that they need to be included, but "non-standard" rules shouldn't be used in the main article body. They should be kept together in their own separate sections, as they are alternative methods of scoring. Also, I feel that you're discounting the club-play level (in other words, local amateur tournament play such as USTA) which in all likelihood contains the vast majority of mixed doubles matches played in the US. Regardless, all this is moot...no-ad scoring is not part of standard scoring rules and your statement in the article that "[...] in standard mixed doubles play, gender always serves to the same gender [...]" is not accurate. Please see ITF Rules of Tennis, Page 7, Rule #15. I've gone ahead and boldly moved the sentence to the no-ad section and sourced it in the ITF rules. This way the information is still contained in the article yet does not give the impression that gender-to-gender receiving is the "standard rule". Hopefully you can agree with that? Amity Lane (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good move to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receiving serve 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More than basic game and set scoring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AAlternate scoring system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great deal of redundancy  

message: Another theory regarding the origin of the scores 15, 30, 40 is that they are related to coin denominations - see e.g. http://tennis.isport.com/tennis-guides/history-of-tennis
81.191.184.223 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin denominations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Determining who is placed on top/bottom in box score? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inventor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Real Tennis 

message: I didn't see in the article how to interpret a number in parentheses. For example, in the Fox News story, Novak Djokovic beats Roger Federer in epic five-set match to win Wimbledon men’s title 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)
thread_title:  I'm Confused about the numbers in parentheses listed in scores. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is WAY too difficult to read! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No need to be obscure!