ITF 2018 AGM - Davis Cup

flamingowings · All-time great

ITF 2018 AGM - Davis Cup

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Goodbye DC. Gone for ever. cry

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yep, 71%.....

Jan · Hall of fame

RIP DC cry cry

indiana · Tennis legend

disbelief cry

steven · Tennis legend

Very, very sad

At least we can say we did our bit (if we can assume we had at least some influence on the LTA), I wonder how the Belgian, Dutch & French players and fans, among others, must feel about their federations selling out.

seagull · Hall of fame

2 Wild Cards to the Finals - Who the hell decides who they are. Rubbish

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I realise that people feel this strongly and I know I'm about the only person here who thinks this might be all for the good but I don't quite understand when people say there will be no more home and away ties. It says:

"Twenty-four teams would compete in home and away ties in February, with 12 winning teams advancing to the finals in November."

I realise that there's no home and away ties for the final week (or for the 4 semi-finalists and two wildcard teams) but it's not like the home-away part is being abolished altogether.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

The money men tighten their grip.
The first wedge is driven.
Tennis in a decade or so will be like boxing, or test match cricket.

JonH · All-time great

I could say lots but wont. I haven't got time as we are on holiday. However, Lucas Pouille got it correct, this is the old ATP world cup that used to be in dusseldorf. That ran out of stem as a) the top players stopped playing and b) it didn't have ranking points. The two things are linked. In deepest November, no one will play. If they don't offer ranking points they definitely won't play. Mark my words that this event will collapse within 5 years. And the ITF which is near bankruptcy will also collapse.

As an aside, apparently Madrid or lille will be the first venue in 2019, with the final selection in the next few weeks.

steven · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
I realise that people feel this strongly and I know I'm about the only person here who thinks this might be all for the good but I don't quite understand when people say there will be no more home and away ties. It says:

"Twenty-four teams would compete in home and away ties in February, with 12 winning teams advancing to the finals in November."

I realise that there's no home and away ties for the final week (or for the 4 semi-finalists and two wildcard teams) but it's not like the home-away part is being abolished altogether.

That's true, H/A is not being abolished altogether but if we look at teams likely to be in the World Group most of the time, they used to get 2-4 ties per year, so on average 1 or 2 per year at home (and if your team got to the later rounds, it was really good to have a 50% chance of playing that at home instead of knowing for sure that you'd have to go to a different country).

Now such teams will get max. 1 H/A tie per year if they continue to be successful and an average of less than half a tie a year (since 6 teams - the WCs and the top 4 at the previous year's finals will not play in the qualifying round). They'll only get more if they drop out of the World Group, and of course ties below World Group level are less well-supported anyway, so we'll probably lose the best ties of all. Assuming one of the WCs is the host (so will get to play at home), that means only about a 72% chance of getting a home or away tie each year if you don't drop down to the Zone Groups, and any home tie we get will be in the middle of winter.

Between 2010-13, GB had a run of 7 home ties in a row, which could just as easily have been 7 away ties in a row. If a nation only gets about 7 home or away ties per decade and got a run of 7 away ties, that could mean 10 years between home ties.

Also, the most important ties will now be the shortest ones (3 rubbers instead of 5) - I know this is like football, with one match at the finals c.f. H/A in qualifying, but that's always seemed weird to me. Football's also different in that committed fans get to see players playing at a very high level for their clubs once or twice a week.

I really don't get the idea of two wild card teams - I understand a wild card for the host country but what will the other wild card be? Do Switzerland and/or Spain get a second chance if they fail to qualify just so that Roger and Rafa can play or does it go up for auction? (Qatar would be a nice opponent to get, I guess ...)

wolf · Tennis legend

Whatever this competition is it's not the DC.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Thanks, Steven.

As always you make some good points.

But when you say "Between 2010-13, GB had a run of 7 home ties in a row, which could just as easily have been 7 away ties in a row," doesn't that mean we could also have gone three years without a home draw ? Which also shows that there could be no home ties under the old format too?

However, completely agree about the two wildcards. One for the host, fine. The other is just for TV rights, and money, and power haggling.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I have to say that I fear for this new competition. (I refuse to call it the DC as I agree with Wolf).

There is no doubt that if you get the likes of Roger and Rafa playing, you could build a stadium at the North Pole and still pack the place out. But the beauty of DC was that when the lesser known players were playing, it didn't matter. The crowds still got behind "their" man and created a wonderful atmosphere. But let's take a hypothetical example of Aus v Jap in the R1 on that week. We get down to the 2nd string players for the final rubber. Can we really see the crowds in Lille or Madrid flocking out to see Taro Daniel v Matt Ebden (no disrespect to those players intended). The tournament may succeed in the first couple of years purely on the "novelty" factor. But once that has eroded, I can see matches being played to half empty stadiums.

steven · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
But when you say "Between 2010-13, GB had a run of 7 home ties in a row, which could just as easily have been 7 away ties in a row," doesn't that mean we could also have gone three years without a home draw ? Which also shows that there could be no home ties under the old format too?

Yes, but for 3 years not 10 (I don't know what the overall record for home or away ties is, but our 7 in a row can't be far off)