By Randy Walker
@TennisPublisher
Much of the current talk of college tennis in the United States is about formats – a subject that is passionately debated among coaches, players, athletic directors, fans and observers of the sport.
Should the opening three doubles matches be eight-game pro sets or six-game sets? Should matches just be six singles matches with the doubles only played in the case of a 3-3 tie? Should matches feature deuce-ad scoring or to “No Ad” scoring? What format can be used to make college tennis more TV friendly for the burgeoning college sports marketplace? Can shorter matches make college tennis profitable and keep programs from getting cut by budget-conscious athletic directors and administrators? In the case of the one-tenth of one percent of college players who actually become professional players, will the scoring systems help or hurt their development?
This current climate made a recent discovery in my mom’s attic that much more interesting. While in the process of cleaning out her attic of the now sold home, many of my keep-sakes and work as a young journalist and as USTA press officer was found in dusty boxes. In addition to newspaper articles I wrote in college, USTA media information I collected, books I authored in my professional career, such as “On This Day In Tennis History,” or books I published such as “The Wimbledon Final That Never Was…” or Rod Laver’s “The Education of a Tennis Player,” I found a series of audio tapes with interviews I had done over the years, some of which were done during my days at the University of Georgia. I found a tape of interviews I conducted in 1988, my freshman year at UGA, that mainly focused on “No Ad” scoring, which was also a subject of debate at the time. I had no idea why I was doing the interviews. I was the team manager and an only-to-be-used-in-case-of-an-apocalypse walk-on player but was starting to envision a career in media and hoping to write a story for anyone who would take it, in the time before the internet and social media.
There was an interesting cross-section of people who I asked about the subject of “No Ad” scoring – four leading coaches at the time – Georgia’s Dan Magill, Stanford’s Dick Gould, UCLA’s Glenn Bassett and Clemson’s Chuck Kriese; three prominent and successful college players at the time – Pepperdine’s 1988 NCAA singles champion Robbie Weiss, Tennessee All-American Shelby Cannon and Stanford All-American Patrick McEnroe (then a senior, looking ahead to a career as a player, broadcaster, U.S. Davis Cup captain and USTA Director of High Performance); and one of the most successful collegiate players in the professional ranks Mikael Pernfors from the University of Georgia, who was two years removed from playing in the 1986 French Open final and three years removed from winning his second straight NCAA singles title.
The following are the transcriptions of these interviews, which reveal interesting perspectives on the subject of no-ad scoring from some of the most iconic and successful figures in the history of college tennis.
DAN MAGILL, University of Georgia men’s tennis coach
(Since the tennis world lost Coach Magill last summer, I have posted the audio file of his interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINO6lMWIXs&list=UU2aqyL0GhjV7dtaKW2SW-2A so we can once again here this distinguished and often imitated voice.
Randy Walker: How did the no-ad scoring originate and then how did it get into college tennis?
Dan Magill: The no-ad scoring system in collegiate tennis began in the early ’70s as I recall. Jimmy Van Alen who invented the tie-breaker. The first tie-breaker was a 9 point tie-breaker. We use a 12 point tie-breaker now in most places. But, when we decided to use the no-ad scoring system it was due to Mr. Van Alen who is responsible for that and the actual tennis hall of fame, he’s one of the greatest men in the history of American tennis and international tennis. He thought up the tie-breaker which has been very good for tennis. Everybody agrees. He also was the outstanding proponent of the VASSS scoring system, which is V-A-S-S, V-A-S-S-S. Van Alen’s Simplified Scoring System, it stands for. That’s the 4-point game. He told us in college tennis that we should use it because our duel matches are so long. I happened to be on the NCAA Tennis Committee that gave it it’s approval to be used in the NCAA Championships. I wasn’t really excited about it. I was a traditonalist, very conservative, believed in fighting to the finish. I didn’t care if the matches lasted two days and two nights. I’d played a lot of long matches myself. I didn’t really care how long it lasted.
We experimented with it. Finally, I saw the merit to it. I became an outstanding advocate of it myself. Our duel matches are the longest athletic competition in the world outside of … for a running sport, the golf match … 18 holes of golf could last longer.
Frequently, our hard fought nip and tuck duel matches last five or six hours with conventional scoring. They even last a long time with no-ad. No-ad doesn’t mean you’re not going to have a long tough match. It just means it would be longer if you used conventional scoring. I saw the merit in it and thought it was good for our college game. It shortened the matches somewhat. It shortened our tournament matches. When you’re playing three-day tournaments and play a lot of matches in 3 days … it’s good if you can knock off an hour or two a day in the matches. There’s so many players now the draws are so big that the no-ad scoring system is the tournament director’s savior. He can get in infinitely more matches during the course of the day with no-ad scoring.
Then, we found out also that the fans liked it. The umpire, if you have an umpire and he holds up the red flag at 3-all when the tie-breaker’s in progress they’re excited for the fans. I became an advocate of it although, originally, I didn’t think too much of it. I hated change. But, I didn’t even want the yellow ball. I thought that was terrible when I first saw it. Now, I’ve found out that you can see it better.
I think it’s a superior scoring system but I don’t care anything about going around stepping up on a soap box and trying to tell anybody else all about it, why they should use it. They want to use provisional scoring, that’s fine, but I … as a tournament director putting on probably more tournaments than anybody that ever lived, for a number of years find it to be the tournament director’s savior. I don’t say that. I don’t think that … I think the better player is still going to win with no-ad scoring. I think even more-so than ever, the better player will win on no-ad scoring.
Randy Walker: Are there any legislation going through the committee to change it now?
Dan Magill: Well, the coaches vote on whether or not to continue no-ad. This year, I understand it was about 50-50. I don’t know whether they will change it now. Tennis will still be a great game, no matter how it is scored. But, I, for one, consider the no-ad scoring systems period to the deuce, add, deuce, add, deuce, add scoring system.
ROBBIE WEISS, 1988 NCAA Champion, Pepperdine
Randy Walker: What do you think about the no-add scoring system even when Brian (Garrow) hit that let court shot (in the 1988 NCAA singles final) that almost brought him back in the match then he won the next game at 3 all too?
Robbie Weiss: I really don’t think about it because I’ve been playing no-add all year. I’ve forgotten what regular scoring was like. I mean it seems natural to me now to playing no-add. When he hit that let court at 3-all, I mean I wasn’t thinking, “Shoot. I wish it could be a regular scoring game.” I just had to keep playing and, you know, maybe I would get a lucky break like that and I wouldn’t complain.
Randy Walker: Do you think no-add scoring will help you when you get into the pros that it will make you concentrate more on every point?
Robbie Weiss: Yeah, I think the no-add system does make you concentrate a little harder. I’m sure I will benefit from it.
DICK GOULD, Stanford University men’s tennis coach
Randy Walker: No-ad scoring versus ad scoring? What’s your opinion of that?
Dick Gould: I kind of like the no-ad. I think it’s kind of exciting when the “SD” sudden death sign goes up on the umpire’s stand and it makes it exciting for spectator tennis. I think, frankly, it helps the players learn to play under pressure a little more because there’s a lot of pressure in no-ad scoring. I don’t think no-ad scoring is any different than a tie-break where you have sudden death or even an ad-out. An ad-out is sudden death too. Whoever wins the point, wins the game. I don’t think there’s a very big … if anything, it helps the kids teach them not to play loose points because they have, not necessarily another chance. I mean, if you get down level and you’re serving there’s a lot of pressure.
Randy Walker: More concentration on every point. Say when they go on to the pros then they’re concentrating more on every point, even when it’s …
Dick Gould: It’s a little hard with two scoring systems to have them go out and play one regular and one no-ad, but I like it.
Randy Walker: Do you think it brings a little more luck into the game? The college game?
Dick Gould: Well, you have more 3-3 points, but you also have an ad point every game too. That can be one and luck shot. Then you have the 12-point tie-break and that can be one and luck shot. You’re going to have luck shots in any ad. In any game where there’s an ad you can have a lucky shot that turns the game. There are more of them, yes. But, I think, in general the betters players are going to win the matches.
MIKAEL PERNFORS, Two-time NCAA Singles Champion, 1986 French Open singles finalist
Randy Walker: What you do feel about the no-add scoring versus in college versus in the pros?
Mikael Pernfors: Well, I think it’s something that you shouldn’t change in the pros. I think it would be good if we turned into no-ad, but I think it’s a great system in college because it really puts a lot more pressure on you, and it makes you work on your concentration a lot more because every point is more important, so I think it’s a perfect system in college.
Randy Walker: So, you think that in college with the three all, with the no-add scoring, that you concentrate more on every single point rather than thinking with deuce, you’re not concentrating as much?
Mikael Pernfors: Well, I think it’s going to be a lot closer in the games. When it comes to breaking somebody’s serve, it’s going to be a lot closer, so first of all, yes, it’s going to make the games a lot closer whether or not you’re going to win your serve, but I think mentally, and just fact that you have to get into it more to win the early points because it’s so big, I think that makes a big difference.
Randy Walker: Also, because it seems like three-all point, like excitement kind of like sudden death, that also kind of adds to the excitement.
Mikael Pernfors: I mean really, I guess that somewhat it shortens the matches a little bit, and also, like you said, it gets more excitement and you get the crowd into it a little bit more, so I think it’s important to have that kind of scoring in college tennis.
Randy Walker: I overheard Coach Magill say that you attribute some of your success for the 86th French Open as training yourself with concentrating on more and more on each point, that helped you in the pros, so it’s just deuce, but you’re concentrating more as a result of the three all points.
Mikael Pernfors: Yeah, you just feel like when you get to the deuce, whether or not it’s a point to win the game, I just feel like it’s such an important point that I think I got up for the points at deuce a lot more than I did before that.
CHUCK KRIESE, Clemson men’s tennis coach
Randy Walker: Just going to ask you what your opinion is on the No-Ad scoring?
Chuck Kriese: Oh, you really want … You want an hour’s worth? (laughs) No … Really, you know I’m always outspoken and I say what I think, but I really, I’ve studied this stuff. I get into all the momentum stuff and strategy and I go over and over and over again. No way I’d probably … The one thing that … One of the things that is really holding our American players back … What happens … You saw a good example today. Okay. Georgia whipped our butts good last week in Montgomery. We only … We didn’t win a set. We split one set match, okay? Then today we turn around and win this thing because we get some momentum on some key three-all points and stuff like that. What happens is that your top players have to take so many losses that they never get a hold of their confidence. Tennis is the type of thing that the whole scoring system is structured to where you need to be able to work yourself into games and get yourself out of trouble and whatever. The better player has to win by two. Not by a net-cord, not by a … ball goes overhead or something like that.
Randy Walker: Right. Little bit of luck.
Chuck Kriese: The whole thing is that the underdog, with No-Ad scoring, shots from the hip. The favored player pushes the ball. That’s why we had thirteen out of sixteen seeds beaten in the first round of NCAA’s last year. Now, no other tennis tournament in the whole world that happens. Every tournament you see usually the same guys rising. But what this does with our top American players is it causes them to take so many losses that they never get a hold of their confidence. Instead of turning out three or four premier players in America every year, we’re turning out twenty pretty good ones. We’re really not … That’s not right.
Probably the best athlete I’ve seen since I’ve been coaching is Kelly Jones from Pepperdine. He never got a hold of his confidence. Just never. Just mediocre, and he should be a great one. Okay, Robbie Weiss who’s the hottest player in college tennis right now, it’s taken him four years to get a hold of his confidence because in freshman, sophomore year, he had to take loss after loss to a lot of players that were just mediocre. That’s mainly what it’s done. Some people say it speeds it up and things. It didn’t speed it up today. It still took five hours. That and a matter of fact, there’s usually a lot more three-set matches because of it. The key thing is that it allows a guy to get back in the match. If you let your britches down for a second, a guy can sneak back in a match. That’s sort of what happened to us here today. We could have been closed out 5-1. Match could have been over in Georgia’s favor three hours ago. Okay? That’s really bad.
The statistics on a Compu-Tennis that they’ve been doing has shown that. As kids come up through the age group, men, 12, 14’s, 16’s, 18’s, they have more and more aggressive play. He’s shown that on key points, our college players play more tentative than 18-year-olds, and then in the pros it goes back up. All we’re doing is teaching our best players to choke, you know? But Chris Garner beat Brian Page 3 and 3 four days ago, and he was in charge of the match the whole time. Hey, what happened today? I don’t know. Couple key three-all points, this and that. It just allows … You don’t have … Heck, if I’m an underdog I’d want to play No-Ad all the time.
We’ve got to get rid of it if we’re going to do anything for American tennis. We really do. It’s time to really understand that. It really takes away from the servers, too. The servers play very tentative when they get down to those three-all points because they’re so afraid of losing serves, so we got a lot of guys who can’t serve out there, either.
PATRICK McENROE, Stanford University Senior
Randy Walker: I wanted to get your thoughts on No-Ad scoring.
Patrick McEnroe: “No-Ad is exciting. It adds a lot of excitement to the game, and I’m not sure if maybe they should change it just because that’s the way you play in the pros, and that’s how you play in the juniors. I mean it’s exciting definitely. I think it’s more of an equalizer. It’s kind of like hit or miss, but it’s definitely exciting. I mean it adds a lot more excitement to college tennis.”
Randy Walker: Do you think maybe some of the other advantages would be that it cuts down the time the duel matches?
Patrick McEnroe: Yeah, that’s definitely a part of it because part of it because college matches can take so long, so say you if can only do three and three, we can lead three matches at a time, so that’s definitely a thing, but I’m not sure how much it’s going to cut down, I don’t know if it’s significantly going to cut down that much in matches. Who knows, but I mean definitely that’s a factor I guess why they have that scoring.”
Randy Walker: Do you think … I talked with Chuck Kriese, the coach at Clemson, he said that the no-add scoring hurts players’ confidence. He used Robbie Weiss as an example of a great player as a freshman, and he didn’t develop the confidence because he lost matches into the three-all points, and he’s just now getting that confidence. Do you think it maybe brings more luck into the game?
Patrick McEnroe: Well, like I said, I mean it may be sort of an equalizer. I mean, I don’t know about stopping the development of someone’s game. I mean, I don’t know if it’s just three-all points is going to do that to someone, and I’ve never quite heard that theory, but who knows. Maybe there’s truth to it. I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it in those terms. Like I said, I think it’s more of an … I mean it’s possible that you thought, I think that maybe a reason why you see a lot more upsets in this (NCAA) tournament, like last year and this year, there’s been a fair amount of upsets. That could have something to do with it.
GLENN BASSETT, UCLA men’s tennis coach
Randy Walker: Feel about no-ad scoring? What’s your opinion of it versus regular scoring?
Glenn Bassett: Well, I think I like regular scoring because of the fact that this is a little bit of parity, makes, you know, equalizer. I think the pros play it, the juniors play the regular scoring system. I think college should too. Makes it a little longer, so it’s a disadvantage, with all the matches, the singles and the doubles that the team plays. There are disadvantages to the regular scoring but I think overall, it’s better.
Randy Walker: Do you think also that the no-ad brings more luck into it?
Glenn Bassett: A little bit, yeah. Yeah, it definitely does.
Randy Walker: Like a let court?
Glenn Bassett: Oh, sure.
Randy Walker: At a 3-all when it could just totally turn the match?
Glenn Bassett: Oh yeah. People tense up more too. That equalizes things. Yeah, so I like them both but I think regular scoring … I’d rather have it.
Randy Walker: You’d rather have the regular scoring?
Glenn Bassett: Yeah, regular scoring. I would. I don’t think the coaches have come to that conclusion. I think some like the no-ad.
Randy Walker: You think that with no-ad scoring it might help players that go on to pros that they concentrate more on every point because it means more?
Glenn Bassett: I don’t really think this … I’ve always felt that way but the more I see it the more I feel maybe that they get too tight playing their points because every point is so crucial. Like you say, there’s maybe more luck involved too.
Randy Walker: What about say that … the confidence factor when you have a super player, super junior, comes, wins every national tournament, stuff like that. Comes into college and loses matches because of 3-all points and he loses confidence and loses more matches and then the super player isn’t so super anymore. That hurts American tennis.
Glenn Bassett: Yeah. I don’t know if you could blame that on the no-ad scoring system. Because super players somehow win no matter what the scoring system is. But, for juniors coming into college tennis period, is a big shock. A lot of times they will lose confidence because they’re playing really tough players now … Mature players who have been through it and it takes a little while unless you’re great. Everyone has to go through that, you know? I’m sure players like Al Parker are going to be very, very good next year but they have to go through it a little bit… Take their whoopings.
SHELBY CANNON, Univ. of Tennessee Senior
Randy Walker: What are your thoughts on No-Ad scoring?
Shelby Cannon: I like no-ad because it’s the only different scoring from all the other tennis, like pros and the juniors. I think it helps you play the bigger points better. I think you’ve played so many years of junior tennis, then you play college, I think something’s got to be different. Plus, I think it makes the matches go by a little quicker. I think it makes it a little more exciting, because three all’s such a big point and if you lose a couple three pointers in a row, you can be out of the match. If you win a few, you can be way ahead. I like it. I think it makes the match definitely more exciting.
Randy Walker: Do you think it makes matches more even?
Shelby Cannon: I think it does even the match out a little bit. That’s probably only the one problem I see with it. I think usually the good players are going to win the big point anyway. It might just take a longer while, like three sets or something. I think it definitely helps.
Randy Walker: You think it brings maybe more luck into it?
Shelby Cannon: Yeah, I think luck could definitely be in it. It helps you bare down. At three-all you know that you can’t make any loose errors, like the first point, you can’t miss an easy volley. As ad, you could maybe miss an easy volley and win the game. I think it just makes you maybe a little more tougher, and if you’re going to win, you have to cut out the little errors. I think it helps.
Randy Walker: It makes you concentrate more on every point …
Shelby Cannon: Yeah.
Randy Walker: Whereas if you’re going pros, you’d concentrate more on a fifteen all point …
Shelby Cannon: Yeah.
Randy Walker: Rather than if it was one.
Shelby Cannon: I agree. You can’t really throw anything away. I think it helps.
