Tennis Score Aesthetics

[Kieran]

I always remember this article by Steve Tignor on the aesthetics of tennis scores. Mainly because it’s something I always felt, that reading the score of some matches suggested the drama that took place, but reading the score of other matches doesn’t.

The final of the World Cup might be 1-nil or 3-2, but that doesn’t tell you nearly as much about that what happened as, say, the score of the 1980 Wimbledon final: 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7 (16), 8-6. I love that score for its tongue-twisting rises and falls, and its final leap up, and then up some more.

I feel the same. There’s something about the dramatic shifts and twists in the score that makes you want to witness that match, to see how it happened. Whereas, of 2008 he says:

That one—6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-7 (8), 9-7 was simple and symmetrical, but it also had that dramatic final leap upward, from a classic fourth-set tiebreaker to an extra-inning fifth set, just like in ’80.

There’s a poetry to tennis scores, and, to me at least, a meaning.

Today’s score - 1-6, 7-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-4 - is twisty and bendy but too lopsided in a couple of sets, and maybe doesn’t suggest the full drama of the match. It’s an interesting article, and way of looking at tennis. For instance, 6-4, 6-4, is a straight sets victory, dropping only 8 games. So is 7-5, 6-3, but that’s a more beautiful score. It tells of one player getting on top in the second after a struggle in the first. 6-3, 7-5 is similar, but not the same. Both, however, tell more of the drama and shifts of the match than 6-4 6-4.

Or I should say, they suggest more drama. The 6-4, 6-4 match might actually be a better match, but the others are more aesthetically beautiful as scores…

 

[tented]

Today’s score - 1-6, 7-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-4 - is twisty and bendy but too lopsided in a couple of sets, and maybe doesn’t suggest the full drama of the match.

This reminds me of Robbie Koenig’s funny-but-true line at the end of Rafa and Soderling’s Rome 2009 encounter: “That was the closest 6-1, 6-0 match I’ve ever seen.”

 

[Moxie]

I always remember this article by Steve Tignor on the aesthetics of tennis scores. Mainly because it’s something I always felt, that reading the score of some matches suggested the drama that took place, but reading the score of other matches doesn’t.




I feel the same. There’s something about the dramatic shifts and twists in the score that makes you want to witness that match, to see how it happened. Whereas, of 2008 he says:





Today’s score - 1-6, 7-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-4 - is twisty and bendy but too lopsided in a couple of sets, and maybe doesn’t suggest the full drama of the match. It’s an interesting article, and way of looking at tennis. For instance, 6-4, 6-4, is a straight sets victory, dropping only 8 games. So is 7-5, 6-3, but that’s a more beautiful score. It tells of one player getting on top in the second after a struggle in the first. 6-3, 7-5 is similar, but not the same. Both, however, tell more of the drama and shifts of the match than 6-4 6-4.

Or I should say, they suggest more drama. The 6-4, 6-4 match might actually be a better match, but the others are more aesthetically beautiful as scores…

I haven't even looked at the article, but I love what you pulled out. Even in the roll-them-around-in-your-mouth beauty of the way some scores sound. Not to mention the geek factor of folks like us, who can read mystery and drama into a mere score line. I feel secure to say that one of the things we tennis fans love about the game is the beauty of its scoring system. Every set re-sets. Every set invites rejuvenation, and new opportunity. I said on the other thread, but this was a pretty great match, even though there was a 1-6 first and a 6-1 third. A lot of drama can get packed into a 6-1 set, (noting @tented's reference above.)

 

[Kieran]

I haven't even looked at the article, but I love what you pulled out. Even in the roll-them-around-in-your-mouth beauty of the way some scores sound. Not to mention the geek factor of folks like us, who can read mystery and drama into a mere score line. I feel secure to say that one of the things we tennis fans love about the game is the beauty of its scoring system. Every set re-sets. Every set invites rejuvenation, and new opportunity. I said on the other thread, but this was a pretty great match, even though there was a 1-6 first and a 6-1 third. A lot of drama can get packed into a 6-1 set, (noting @tented's reference above.)

Yeah it’s an odd scoring system that rewards getting to know it and understand it. And when we have enough familiarity with it, we can imagine a lot by just reading the scores. They sound like code that we decipher. But even sometimes the look of the numbers gets me. I prefer odd numbers. 6-3, 6-1 is more beautiful to me than 6-2, 6-4. Might be because it makes me wonder how many breaks of serve there were, even though every game might have been a break off serve in either score line. I don’t know how it works, or why - it’s to do with mystery or magic!

 

[Jelenafan]

7-5 is the most aesthetic of all tennis scores, indicating it was close and yet slipped away from one player’s fingers.

When I see that score I imagine the loser had chances to put the set away at 5-4 with set points, did not convert, and the Tennis Gods cruelly punished him with a 5-7 set loss. ; )

 

[Moxie]

7-5 is the most aesthetic of all tennis scores, indicating it was close and yet slipped away from one player’s fingers.

When I see that score I imagine the loser had chances to put the set away at 5-4 with set points, did not convert, and the Tennis Gods cruelly punished him with a 5-7 set loss. ; )

I love the 7-5 because it feels the most clear. No matter what happened in the set, (breaks, breaks back,) it was tight and one player grabbed the break late, just before it went to TB.

I'll give you a couple examples of 6-4 sets that don't tell the tale:

Nadal d. Federer Wimbledon 2008: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7. (And if you're not a Federer fan, that's a numerically beautiful score.)
* 2nd set: Federer leads by a break, 4-1. Nadal rattles off 5 games. 6-4 looks like one break, which the first set was, but the 2nd was a totally different set.

Nadal d. Djokovic USO 2013: 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1
* 3rd set: Looks like a routine 1 break win, but it was anything BUT that. Full of drama. Also, the 6-1 4th. It wasn't that Novak just went away.

I also love the little parenthetical number after a 7-6 TB set. Tells a lot in one digit.

 

[Kieran]

I love the 7-5 because it feels the most clear. No matter what happened in the set, (breaks, breaks back,) it was tight and one player grabbed the break late, just before it went to TB.

I'll give you a couple examples of 6-4 sets that don't tell the tale:

Nadal d. Federer Wimbledon 2008: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7. (And if you're not a Federer fan, that's a numerically beautiful score.)
* 2nd set: Federer leads by a break, 4-1. Nadal rattles off 5 games. 6-4 looks like one break, which the first set was, but the 2nd was a totally different set.

Nadal d. Djokovic USO 2013: 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1
* 3rd set: Looks like a routine 1 break win, but it was anything BUT that. Full of drama. Also, the 6-1 4th. It wasn't that Novak just went away.

I also love the little parenthetical number after a 7-6 TB set. Tells a lot in one digit.

That extra digit at the tiebreak really gives the game away, doesn’t it? Did the opponent fold at the crunch? Or do I need to watch the highlights?

7-5 has a burly tension to it that suggests steadiness to the end - except when one player buckled. It sets the imagination racing. It’s a heartbreaking score, or the most delicious one. Borg winning the second set 7-5 v McEnroe in that classic final signaled a release from the cage for Bjorn, after that torrid 6-1 first set.

They also gave us a good score in New York that year: 7-6, 6-1, 6-7, 5-7, 6-4. Obvious momentum shifts.

The 2008 match, Tignor mentions the symmetry of the set scores but you’re right, it’s numerically beautiful. It actually tells the tale exactly as it was, too..