Davis Cup 2014 - World Group Round 1 - 31 Jan-2 Feb - USA v GB

RJA · Hall of fame

RE: Davis Cup 2014 - World Group Round 1 - 31 Jan-2 Feb - USA v GB

stevemcqueen · Futures qualifying

I think Leon will be logical, and just see what happens in the run up to the tie and how they look in practice in San Diego. I don't think a thumping will damage Kyle unduly. He'll be thumped plenty of times over his career however good or bad it tuns out to be.

indiana · Tennis legend

Actually, RJA, I don't think we're far apart, most particularly in our concerns about pitching Kyle in, with some folk maybe getting a but carried away. Just maybe at the margins.

I've no huge issue about playing Kyle on the first day. I could see merit in giving James match time, but yes there might be demerit if he got absolutely thumped. And Kyle could I guess perform really well against Isner and add food for though. My own preference as of now for Day 1 would be James, but I see the alternative case.

But asked to pick someone to play Querrey here ( or just about anyone for a one-off match ), on the evidence we have, that for me is James, and my previous post ( I can't quote from my mobile ) was really in response to TMH's comments on their relative clay abilities.

RJA · Hall of fame

indiana wrote:
Actually, RJA, I don't think we're far apart, most particularly in our concerns about pitching Kyle in, with some folk maybe getting a but carried away. Just maybe at the margins.

I've no huge issue about playing Kyle on the first day. I could see merit in giving James match time, but yes there might be demerit if he got absolutely thumped. And Kyle could I guess perform really well against Isner and add food for though. My own preference as of now for Day 1 would be James, but I see the alternative case.

But asked to pick someone to play Querrey here ( or just about anyone for a one-off match ), on the evidence we have, that for me is James, and my previous post ( I can't quote from my mobile ) was really in response to TMH's comments on their relative clay abilities.

Actually we are in complete agreement. I would play James for both singles matches but I can see the case for not doing so.

It is of course possible that the talk about Kyle is just a smokescreen and that the plan was always to play James. Or indeed the plan might have been to play Dan had he not effectively dropped himself for the tie by returning to Britain.

indiana · Tennis legend

The moment the US plumped for clay was the moment I thought GB possibly had more chance of winning the tie ( more chance of getting well beaten too, but that's not the priority ).

That was largely based on the thought of a possibly deciding match between Querrey and James or Evo. I hadn't factored Kyle into that, and as well as he has done, as I say ( as of now ) it's James for me for that match.

RJA · Hall of fame

indiana wrote:
The moment the US plumped for clay was the moment I thought GB possibly had more chance of winning the tie ( more chance of getting well beaten too, but that's not the priority ).

If you ask me it was a very strange decision. Regardless of surface you have to expect that both Murray and Isner will win on Day 1. For the doubles tie it makes little difference as both teams would have preferred hard to clay. It probably gives Isner a slightly better chance against Murray than he would have on hard but it exposes Querrey to a fifth rubber on easily his weakest surface. He is probably still favourite for that rubber but not to the extent he would have been on hard.

It seems to me that the American's put too much thought into making life uncomfortable for Murray and not enough thought in how to give themselves the best chance of winning 3 rubbers.

philwrig · Hall of fame

You could look at this way, Kyle is going to have more ATP main draw appearances than Wardy over a 12 month period ( albeit by WC ) Wardy won't beat the US number 2, but Kyle if Querrey gets tight has an outside shot. He's in form, looks in better nick than last year( improving rapidly) whereas Wardy isn't, and the playing surface is the key.

-- Edited by philwrig on Tuesday 21st of January 2014 08:57:09 PM

TMH · Futures qualifying

indiana wrote:
Since when did James become incompetent on clay ??

OK, he may not be in great form ( and that is more of the issue ), but the guy has won a challenger event on US clay ( Sarasota in 2009 ). He's certainly comparatively more comfortable on the surface than most Brits.

Kyle has played a lot on clay with some amount of futures sucess ( although that is in part for experience and match practice rather than it's supremely his best surface ). But he is no obvious pick on a US clay court over James.

2009. Over four years ago. He's barely played on the surface in the last couple of years and when he has his results have been underwhelming to say the least. He has next to no chance of pulling off a win. Might keep it respectable or put up a fight, but actually win?

-- Edited by TMH on Tuesday 21st of January 2014 09:11:04 PM

savva0122 · Intermediate Club Player

I'd play wardy. I know he can be disappointing however he's got the experience and is a proven performer in DC

RJA · Hall of fame

philwrig wrote:
You could look at this way, Kyle is going to have more ATP main draw appearances than Wardy over a 12 month period ( albeit by WC ) Wardy won't beat the US number 2, but Kyle if Querrey gets tight has an outside shot. He's in form, looks in better nick than last year( improving rapidly) whereas Wardy isn't, and the playing surface is the key.

I really don't know what you are basing your belief on that Kyle has a better chance of beating Querrey than James has. For all his promise Kyle has only won 3 main draw matches above futures level and all three were against relatively weak opposition for the standard of event he was in. James hasn't played well recently but he does have a demonstrated record of being able to beat top 100 players.

philwrig · Hall of fame

But on clay ? Kyle is an unknown, unexposed quantity, rapidly on the rise. It's a close call, but on current form/ because it's clay, and with an eye to the future, I think Kyle would be my call too.

PaulM · Tennis legend

If we win this it won't be a result of our number 2 singles player.

indiana · Tennis legend

Here and now, Phil, here and now !

I'm most interested in trying to win this winnable ( but difficult ) tie. In any event too much can change, too many experiences had, to be playing too much for the future. We're back in the World Group, I want to see us give it our best shot this year.

Now, discussing the here and now, we may still have a debate. While, yes, Kyle is improving and is a great prospect, I'm very much with RJA on this one.

Kyle is not some unknown, unexposed quantity on clay, we have been following him for the past year play the vast majority of his matches on the surface, making decent progress at futures level. And while he is improving, he didn't exactly blow away that futures field last week. It was his first outing of the year, and some rustiness was to be expected, and I found it pretty encouraging. But springboard to the Davis Cup tie against such higher quality players over James ? Naa..

indiana · Tennis legend

If we win this, it WILL be because of a winning contribution from our no 2 singles player and / or our doubles pair ( odds against both, but both possible ) plus almost certainly two singles wins from Andy.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I would back our doubles pair before our singles number 2, unless Isner is injured but even so the Americans have plenty other guys who, at least on paper, are far stronger than what we bring to the table (and our guys have lost to players who would struggle to make their D team over the past year). I don't rate Sam Q in the grand scheme of things but even on clay I would expect him to beat James or Kyle.

The Bryans are always beatable despite their 'aura of invincibility', as this week showed.

-- Edited by PaulM on Wednesday 22nd of January 2014 12:09:35 AM