Padel scoring formats: what real-time time savings does Star Point offer compared to Golden Point? Padel Magazine

The announced introduction of Star Point In professional padel, it is presented as a response to a central issue: the duration of the matches But beyond the stated intention, one question remains: Would the time saved really be significant? and how does it compare to a more radical option like the Golden Point (No-Ad) ?

A well-founded analysis allows us to put the expected effects into perspective.

What really makes a match last? professional padel

In the high level padel The duration of a match is not primarily linked to fast plays or isolated decisive points. The determining factor remains the a succession of equalities and advantages within the same game.

A game can end:

en 4 point (white game)
en 6 to 8 points with one or two advantages,
but sometimes in 10, 12 or even 14 points when ties follow one after another.

It is these games ended in prolonged tie which consume the most time, much more than a single decisive point.

Orders of magnitude observed in the match

In the absence of consolidated official statistics, broadcasts and observations nevertheless allow us to establish plausible orders of magnitude :

A match of professional padel lasts on average 1h30 to 2h (although obviously it depends on the tournament, the conditions, the opposition, etc.).
Around 25 to 35% of games reach 40–40 .
These games are tied:
- the majority concludes after 1 or 2 advantages ,
- only a minority exceeds 3 successive equalities .

In other words, truly time-consuming situations exist, but remain minority .

Le Star Point : what is the actual time saving?

If we consider a Star Point operating on a hybrid model:

classical equality,
potential advantages
and decisive point imposed after 3 ties,

so the temporal impact remains target .

In a standard match of 20 to 24 games :

only 1 to 3 games would actually be shortened,
with an estimated gain of 30 seconds to 1 minute per game concerned.

Le Estimated total gain would therefore be around 2 to 4 minutes per match , in a favorable scenario.

The benefit exists, but it remains modest , variable and difficult to perceive on a global scale.

Comparison with the Golden Point (No-Ad)

Le Golden Points by completely eliminating the advantages to 40–40 , acts in a much more direct way over time.

In this format:

Each tie ends immediately.
without the possibility of repeating the ties.

Based on the same observations:

25 to 35% of games are directly impacted
with an average gain of 1 to 2 minutes per game concerned .

Le Estimated total gain reached then 10 to 20 minutes per match , depending on the profile of the encounter.

The difference is clear:
le Golden Points has an impact structural , where the Star Point acts in a corrective and punctual .

A major difficulty: the precise quantification

One factor complicates any definitive conclusion: the lack of comparable public data .

To objectively measure the real impact of a format, it would be necessary to:

compare matches of equivalent level,
isolate the effective playing time ,
neutralize pauses, video challenges and downtime,
to analyze a substantial volume of statistics.

To date, no official study has been able to precisely validate the claimed gains. Therefore, any estimate remains speculative. indicative , and not absolute.

A challenge that goes beyond the simple stopwatch

If you Star Point It does not drastically change the duration of matches; its interest lies elsewhere:

best readability for the public ,
clear identification of a key moment of the game ,
strengthening of the dramatic tension and television storytelling.

Conversely, the Golden Points prioritizes above all temporal efficiency, with a more radical sporting impact.

Comparison table: Star Point vs Golden Point

Criterion	Star Point	Golden Point (No-Ad)
Rule type	Hybrid: (advantages + decisive point)	Radical (removal of benefits)
Games concerned	Games with extended ties only	All games at 40–40
Estimated time savings	2 to 4 minutes per match	10 to 20 minutes per match
Impact on the game's structure	Limit	Important
Readability for the public	Raised on a key point	Very high and immediate
Perceived sporting fairness	Intermediate	Debated
Ease of statistical measurement	Low	Élevée

Le Star Point If adopted, it will not radically transform the duration of matches. professional padel Its potential time savings become apparent. real but marginal , difficult to quantify precisely and very dependent on the game scenario.

Conversely, the Golden Points offers a much more significant reduction in duration, but at the cost of a more pronounced structural change.

The debate surrounding scoring therefore goes beyond the simple question of minutes gained. It touches on the balance between sporting fairness, readability and storytelling of the spectacle , a strategic choice that engages the very identity of professional padel.

Franck Binisti

Franck Binisti discovered padel at the Club des Pyramides in 2009 in the Paris region. Since then, padel has been part of his life. You often see him touring France to cover major French padel events.