No Love for No-Ad
I want to be snarky about No-Ad scoring. Pulling back the curtain a bit, I am striving for “informative, smart, and funny” in every post,Read More
An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
I want to be snarky about No-Ad scoring. Pulling back the curtain a bit, I am striving for “informative, smart, and funny” in every post,Read More
Today’s post is full of drama, intrigue, and suspense. Can the Fiend finally close out the tie-breaker? I think all that remains to cover areRead More
We have finally arrived at two tie-break related questions that for whatever reason seem to completely befuddle a significant number of players. The first questionRead More
Five full days after setting out to start writing about the tie-breaker, I finally get around to actually writing about the rule as it appearsRead More
As was mentioned yesterday, the professional players that were inflicted with the sudden death tie-breaker implemented at the US Open uniformly hated it. Initial protestsRead More
A couple of days ago when I should have started writing about the tennis tie-breaker, I inexplicably plunged down the Jimmy Van Alen VASSS rabbitRead More
Today I should be writing about the Friend at Court section 5.a, “Tie-Break game,” but I finally arrived at the realization that before I can write effectively about that topic, that first I need to get “VASSS” and Jimmy Van Alen out of my system.
1 responseAs is becoming the custom for this exercise, several days after first moving into a new rule section, I finally get around to actually writing about the rule.
The very first book in the world on tennis was written in 1555 by a priest, Antonio Scaino da Salo, after he witnessed a match during which a question about the game arose that was not explained to his apparent satisfaction.
Now that we have firmly established that no one really knows the origin of why Love represents “no score” in tennis, the logical next examination is to focus on the subsequent points.