Whodunnit: Fast4

Yesterday I wrote about the Fast4 set scoring format and my personal experience with it at the 2018 NTRP National Championships. Today I will remain on the Fast4 rabbit trail by attempting to solve the mystery of who inflicted this scoring system on the rest of tennis.

Jimmy Van Alen is the usual suspect for origination of rules that shorten tennis matches. While he certainly sowed the seeds that eventually spawned Fast4, for once the blame for this format cannot be laid at his feet. If Jimmy Van Alen had invented the format it probably would have been much more effectively codified and marketed than it currently is in the United States.

As an example, in the “Heading into a Breaker” post I wrote about how the original implementation of the tie-break game involved waving an emblazoned red flag signaling that “sudden death” had been reached. In that spirit, I would observe that Jimmy Van Alen would certainly have created a flag or banner to promote Fast4. I am assuming that it would have contained a black and white checkered pattern, as is used for the final lap of racing events. That flag does not exist, thus that fact, coupled with the complete absence of any information pointing in his direction, exonerates Jimmy Van Alen.

The word on the street is that Fast4 was invented in Australia. While there isn’t a single authoritative source for that information, there is a lot of agreement from multiple sources that corroborate an Australian origin. This means that it is time to investigate the local tennis authorities in Australia.

In “The ITF, USTA Overlord” post earlier this year I discussed the relationship between the USTA and the ITF. To reiterate the primary point of that essay, the ITF has supreme authority over the rules of tennis. The USTA Friend at Court reprints the ITF Rules of Tennis along with clearly denoted USTA augmentations and comments. It occurred to me at the time that other countries or regions must also have their own associations, but did not pursue that thread because this project is currently USTA focused.

The regional tennis sanctioning body for Australia is somewhat unimaginatively named “Tennis Australia.” The “Australian Ranking Tournament Rules and Regulations” publication is roughly equivalent to the USTA Friend at Court, but is structured a little differently. For example, the ITF Rules of Tennis are not reprinted in the Australian Rules and Regulations but are pointed to as a separate document. As a result, Tennis Australia does not have to update their regulations every time the ITF updates the rules. There is a simple elegance to the publication that is not matched by the Friend at Court.

Section 7 of the “2020 Australian Ranking Tournament Rules and Regulations” contains a complete description of the Fast4 rules. I regard this as the smoking gun of culpability for the format.

The Australian rules still contain some of the same fundamental issues that I have in general with the Fast4 scoring system, but for now I am declaring that Tennis Australia is the official and authoritative owner of the rules governing this format of play.

Tomorrow I will delve into the insidious spread of this format and possibly talk about a little cricket.

1. United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
2. 2020 Australian Ranking Tournament Rules and Regulations, Tennis Australia, December 21, 2019.
3. 4 Fast Arguments Against Fast 4, Bleeping Tennis, September 21, 2018 (This is a domain also owned by the author.)
4. Nine serves up FAST4 tennis, David Knox, TV Tonight (Australia), December 23, 2014
5. New Rules, Next Gen ATP Finals, viewed February 20, 2020.
6. United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY