Wimbledon just concluded yesterday (congrats Sinner!), and it's a reminder of how much I enjoy tennis as a sport. I used to play it some (wasn't particularly good), and still tangentially follow it nowadays (the Roland Garros final this year between Alcaraz and Sinner is an all-time classic). 

There's something intrinsically mesmerising about the sport, I think even for spectators who have never picked up a racquet. At first glance, it may seem like just two people (or four, but doubles is another thing altogether) hitting a ball across a net. But behind each hit of the ball is a strategic dance, a blend of mind games, and skilful execution. Players meticulously analyse their opponents' strengths and weaknesses, adjusting their game plans with each serve and volley. It's not just about hitting the ball - it's about outsmarting your opponent, anticipating their moves, and forcing them into uncomfortable positions. This dynamic interplay transforms tennis into a mental battle, as players become part-time psychologists on the court, reading cues and crafting strategies on the fly.

But beyond the gameplay, the spectacle of the 'tennis match' is remarkable. The roar of the crowd between points, but then immediately being shushed by the umpire before each serve. There is something deeply gladiatorial about the game: Two people alone in an arena, face to face, with nothing else to fight with but the racquet in their hand and their wits about them. 

The one odd thing about the sport? Counting. Or the lack thereof, rather. Scoring goes Love-15-30-40. Which actually makes no sense. (Tie-break games are scored normally, as in 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. You know, like normal, logical people.) First, why in increments of 15 for each point? And then why is the last increment to 40, not 45? And we're not even going to get into why 0 is called 'love', or talk about deuce. 

There are a few theories for this, though there is still no singular, universally agreed upon explanation. One theory is that the scoring system originated from an old French game called jeu de paume (the medieval precursor to modern tennis), and suggests that the scoring was influenced by divisions of a clock face, much like how the hour is divided into quarters. This idea posits that points originally marked 0, 15, 30, and 45, but over time, 45 was shortened to 40 for faster, clearer communication during matches. But, minute hands on clocks were only introduced in the late 1500s, later then when this scoring system was first recorded. 

Another explanation is to do with betting (naturally). The Carolingian monetary system was the currency structure used widely in Europe at that time, and is a Sexagesimal (base 60) system. The thinking here is that tennis scoring was lined up to also be base 60 to facilitate wagering on the sport. 

Despite having to clear (and obvious) explanation, the odd scoring system now perhaps adds to the charm and mystique of the sport. 

Anyway, time to dust off my old racquet and see if I can still hit a small green ball. 

~ Desmond

Photos from Unsplash