I watched the men’s match yesterday and just when I thought a set was over, they played another game. Or two. And when I thought the match was over, they played another set.
I know a game is scored love, 15, 30, 40, and you have to win a game by two points. I understand deuce, ad in, and ad out. But when is a set over, and when is a match over?
Sets: first player to six games with a break of serve. If the serve isn’t broken during the set (or is broken back) and the set finishes 6-6, a tiebreak is played. (as you saw yesterday for the 3rd and 4th set yesterday).
At Wimbledon, If everything is square in the final set, they just keep going until there is a clear two game margin - no tiebreak is played. I don’t know whether this is universal or if there are the other Grand Slam tournaments who settle final sets on tiebreaks.
ETA: Sets in general: for men, a minimum of three are played. If you win the first three, the match is yours. So once Nadal had won the first two sets, Federer needed to win the next two sets to force the match into a fifth set to even have a chance.
Or putting it another way, you have to win six games by two clear games to win the set. Once the set score reaches 5-5, this is no longer possible, so it becomes the first to seven games (i.e. it is possible to win a set 7-5). Once the set reaches 6-6 a tie-breaker is played, the winner of which will take the set 7-6. ETA - a tiebreaker doesn’t apply in the final set.
Some trivia - the tiebreak was first proposed in 1965 and gained impetus after an epic match between Pancho Gonzales and Charlie Pasarell at Wimbledon in 1969, where the final scoreline after 5 hours and 12 minutes was 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. More here - Tiebreak history
Grim
They indicate the score in points in the tiebreaker - why the two sources have them different I don’t know
Grim
The US Open has tiebreaks in the fifth set; the other three major tournaments don’t. Outside of the Grand Slam events, most tournaments are best of three sets with a tiebreak if necessary in the fith set.
I think the simplest way to imagine sets is “first to seven, but if you get to six and are ahead by two, you win.” It’s not particularly simple, but I think that takes in everything. Promethea’s got it about 99% there, but if a set is tied 5-5, it’s possible to win 7-5 without it going to a tiebreak.
The scores in the parentheses show how the points were won in the seventh game (the tie break to decide the set). So, for instance, it tells you that Federer won the fourth set by 10 points to Nadal’s 8. (You need a clear margin of two points if it is all square at 6-6 in the tie break).
Why are they different? I think the 3-7 is wrong! It was 5-7, I think.
ETA: Thanks to Marley23 & grimpixie for the clarification of the 7-5 possibilty which I forgot!
Men play best of 5 sets, women play best of 3.
And should add that the Women (Ladies) play best two out of three sets, not best three out of five.
I thought I just said that! 
Best of 3 sets is ‘best two out of three’, just as best of 5 sets is ‘best three out of five’.
[pet peeve]Nadal won a nail-biting five+ hour marathon in which being ahead by two sets was no guarantee of winning and a serve was broken in only three games throughout. Meanwhile Venus wins in straight sets and much less than half the time, and pockets as much prize money, all in the name of fairness.[/pp]
Alright, with that out of the way, can someone tell me why the scores for an individual game are so weird? Why does it go love-15-30-40 (unless the other guy’s at 40, then it’s like deuce, advantage, ad-in/ad-out)?
I mean…what would the harm be in just going “0, 1, 2, 3”?
ETA: I’m sure the only answer is “tradition,” but way back when it was becoming popular and whatnot, why didn’t someone go “Well, before we make a big list of international rules that we’ll all follow, let’s make this scoring thing simple first.”
Yeah, I like how they do it in baseball: If a team sweeps in 4, the winning team forfeits 40% of their prize money.
I, personally, watched both the men’s and the women’s matches, and enjoyed both matches thoroughly. I love the majors BECAUSE I get to see both men and women’s matches. The men’s game is more power and the women’s game is more finesse. Both have merit in tennis.
BTW, I would have watched Serena and Venus’s doubles match had ESPN or NBC chosen to air instead of airing a BOWLING match.
I disagree - the men’s game has more power and more finesse. The Williams sisters introduced the power game to women’s tennis and killed off players with finesse and strategy, e.g. Hingis. The top women players now play a power game from the baseline - it is very one-dimensional. The Williams are amongst the very few players who can approach the net with some degree of confidence, but it is still not finesse. Nadal and Federer can both play short angles and drop-shots better than the top women players. And players like Murray and Santoro (and most other French men) also have way more finesse than the women.
It’s weird. Volleyball can do away with side out marathons. Soccer can liberalize offsides. Hockey can make two line passes legal. Tennis, of all the major sports in the world, is the only one that never changes anything, even some ridiculously archaic divide-the-score-by-15-oops-except-for-40 convention. I find it especially bizarre that an international sport is clinging to a single country’s practice*, and I find it incredibly bizarre that there hasn’t been a whisper of complaint about this. From any nationality. Ever.** Anyone know why?
(Don’t get me started on this whole “serve hits the net and lands outside the box, it’s a fault, serve hits the net and lands in the box, it’s a do-over” thing.)
Oh, and as far as tiebreakers goes, the important distinction is 5-5 (however it happens; the number of breaks/break-backs is irrelevant). That means that there are two games to go. One player wins both, that’s 7-5 and a win. A split, and we’re going to a tiebreaker. Of course, it’d make a little more sense to hold the tiebreaker at 5-5…that way the winning score is 6 no matter what…but what the heck, I don’t have a problem with a little extra opportunity for someone to take the set “properly”.
** Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. I’m not holding my breath.
Both tours adopted instant replay just a couple of years ago, and they made some changes to scoring in doubles that were pretty badly received by the players - I think they play a “super-tiebreaker” instead of a fifth set in Slams. The WTA has also allowed a limited amount of coaching on court, although I think that’s stupid (and kind of a fig leaf, since there’s actually a ton of coaching going on). Maybe tradition has a stronger pull in tennis, but I don’t know. Changing the scoring system to 15-30-45 wouldn’t actually do anything - it’s the same number of points regardless of what you call it - it’d just be change for change’s sake or dumbing it down. And it’d get shortened back to 40 anyway because 45 has an extra syllable. Ther eare also the changes in racquet technology, and tiebreaks are normal now - and a good idea - but they strike me as a big change.
What rules has baseball changed recently? I know they’re looking at instant replay on home run calls.
By a single country I assume you mean the UK? Well, SOMEONE had to invent the game and establish a convention, and it’s not as if the UK now continues to dictate the rules. Why is the scoring such a problem for you? If it works, why change it?
Heck, you should try following the rules of cricket!
Not in general, they don’t. Some tournaments, including some slams, play a deciding set super-tiebreaker for doubles. But nobody does for singles.
Many doubles tournaments also use no-ad scoring (after the score gets to deuce, the next point wins the game).
These changes to doubles are to shorten the matches and make it more attractive for the major singles players to play.
I was talking only about doubles there. 
Forgot about that one. I hate no-ad scoring.
Which has been a total failure so far, although it’s succeeded in alienating the doubles players.
When I mentioned baseball earlier I didn’t think of interleague play and the wildcard. In terms of the way the game has played, I don’t think there have been many changes. Like tennis, it’s more the style of play that has changed than the actual rules.