I am startled to find that my last post completed the score in a game section and that it is now time to move into Section 6, “Score in a Set.” I don’t know if it was intentional, but I think it’s good Feng Shui that the rules on set scoring were placed into section 6, which is the same number as minimum games required to win a set. The juxtaposition makes me happy.
To win a set, a player must win a minimum of six games. There are two basic types of sets outlined in this section. In an “Advantage Set,” a margin of two games is required for victory and there is no tie-breaker invoked at any score. In the “Tie-break Set” at six games a tie-break game is played to determine the winner.
I do not know how this has escaped my realization previously, but the tie-break set is a very recent innovation in tennis. The tiebreak game was not invented until the 1950’s and it wasn’t adopted for use until the US Open in 1970. This means that there must be a plethora of very long non-deciding sets that have been played. Mind blown. Now that I am sensitized, I see the non-tie break sets all over the historical scores of tennis. It is so obvious in retrospect.
One example would be a first round match at Wimbledon in 1969 that saw Pancho Gonzales defeat Charlie Pasarell by the epic score of 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. It was a two day match that lasted over five hours. It is probably no coincidence that the tie-break game was introduced at the US Open the following year. The longest match in tennis history was Isner-Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010 which culminated in a 70-68 final set. If that match had been played with the exclusive use of advantage sets, I shudder to wonder how long it might have lasted. The tie-break set was clearly a necessary innovation.
This brings me to the stark realization that my attachment to the traditional rules of tennis is pretty much is narrowly focused on the rules as have been played during my lifetime. For the entirety of my tennis career, there has been a tie-break set. To me, this is simply how tennis has always been. Until now, I have not fully appreciated that the tie-break is a very recent modification. I am now armed with the realization that my preference for the traditional rules of tennis, and resultant resistance to rule changes, only pertains to alterations of the game from the way I learned to play it as a child.
Section 6 “Score in a Set” is a relatively short one and this post essentially completes the main body of that topic. I think I have is a little more to explore on current usage of advantage and tie-break sets before delving into the “Little Shop of Horrors” that is alternate set scoring formats presented in Appendix V.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
- “1970: The Tiebreaker is Introduced“, Steve Tignor, Tennis.com, February 19, 2015.
- “How Are Ties Broken in Tennis? That Depends,” Christopher Clarey, New York Times, January 12, 2019.
- “2010: Isner outlasts Mahot in 11-hour, 183-game Wimbledon Epic,” Steve Tignor, tennis.com, December 17, 2015, viewed February 17, 2020.
