Dan Evans called up for Davis Cup semi-final

First topic message reminder :

Strange move this. I'm a big fan of Evans, think he has lots of talent.

To be fair, I am guessing he probably has more chance of winning a match than Ward at the moment. Edmund is obviously injured too.

GB likely to still be relying to two Murray singles wins and the Murray's winning the doubles.

I actually think that right now Rogers too consistent to take 2 off of him, focus on the DC this year. Wait for time to finally catch up with Roger, when theres a better chance to push for number 1

And Darcis does it. Belgium vs Great Britain it is.

its to be ze Belgians, which is basically Goffin and Darcis at home v the Murrays.

Nore Staat wrote:Following on from Henman Bill I would say Murray's Joint Priority for the rest of the year: His Back & the Davis Cup.  Everything else is subsidiary.  I would even drop out of the two masters & the end of year World Tour Final.  Two grand slams including Wimbledon in the era of Federer, Nadal & Djokovic + Olympic Gold + Davis Cup (almost single handedly) would give him a lasting legacy in British tennis (which couldn't be much bettered.  A period ranked at World No. 1 would be a bonus) plus an honorary mention in the history of the sport of tennis.

At least Belgium has no doubles players – weaker in that sphere than any of the teams GB has faced this year. I'm still surprised Bemelmans & Coppejans beat Nestor & Shamasdin in their QF. Maybe Shamasdin was nervous for his first DC experience.

monty junior wrote:What has Mauresmo done to Andy's serve, he just hit's it so softly now, it's like he's trying to hit it so easy he doesn't fully extend on it and seems to almost mishit it a lot. He needs that 130+ delivery back perhaps not here but in matches against the better returners. Just seem's bizarre to go back to the passive forehand pre lendl and now the serve.

Murray's variety is back and if anything the serve is a bit more consistent. I don't agree that he's gone back to the "passive forehand" - it wasn't passive when he was winning the two Masters, this year

There was nothing particularly 'lights out' about Murray when he won his two slams. For instance I think you'll find at this years French, his forehand was as powerful as it's ever been

For me, at his best, he''s currently playing better than ever

Nore Staat wrote:Murray reveals he was struggling badly with his back throughout the weekend and was trying to disguise it.  Let's hope he recovers and looks after himself.

If Belgium win the expectation is that the final will be played on clay ...  I don't think Andy could do three potentially five set matches on clay on successive days in autumn following a long season.

Belgium chose hard courts for their match against Argentina, presumably because Argentina have a tradition of clay court tennis.

Belgium could be in danger of making the same error the USA made. It's now arguable, that Murray's best surface is now clay - and it's certainly not Darcis'!!

Whilst it obviously would be an issue for doubles, their doubles team isn't that hot anyway

Not certain, I'd fancy trying to penetrate Murray's defences on clay, but in theory the higher bouncing lower speed surface shouldn't be as ideal as what we've just seen for him

I just don't think it benefits Belgium enough

It would be a steal for Murray to get a DC victory. Nothing wrong with it given his heroics in the Aussie and France matches. 

I do wonder if he would play next year. Some heavyweights in the WG. GB would ideally need to draw Argentina, Kazakhstan or USA which would be winnable. Plus being 29 next year you'd feel Slam success would be his goals.

Belgium chose clay in the quarter-finals and defeated an under strength Canadian team 5 - 0. The best chance Belgium have of beating Britain is to prevent Murray playing in the doubles that is why Andy Murrays reckons it will be on clay (he said after his victory he expected Belgium to beat Argentina and chose clay for the final). Then it comes down to who wins in the doubles assuming Murray is fit enough for the two clay matches.

Does anyone know by when Belgium has to decide on the venue and surface? The final will be played 27–29 November 2015.

http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=100022386

But it brings Darcis back to the GB pack. He's so adept on clay, that he never bothers or qualifies for the dirt Masters!!

It may be Belgium's best tactic - but I don't think it's significantly better for them than playing on a hard court. GB could win the doubles without Andy

The Murray / Goffen match, could be close but arguably it's surface neutral as both have a similar varied game and don't favour a particular surface anymore

The US did the same in the 2014 tie and if anything it hindered their players more. 

Though, it's the doubles that will be the deciding factor I feel and on Clay not so sure about the Murrays.

Belgium have 2 weeks to decide.
If it's clay, Murray may miss the WTF to practice on clay.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34309163

In fairness to Belgium, clay won't hinder their best player as much as it did for the US!!

I'm still amazed at how the US threw any chance away, but I think Murray would have beaten Isner anyway - it was more that it totally weakened the prospects of their No.2, which made you marvel at their thought process

That's why I'd question if it really helps Darcis. It's arguable, given how close Murray and Goffen are on all surfaces, that the one he needs the help most is their second man

Generally speaking, I'm not at all bothered by Davis Cup.

But I think if Britain were to win, it would be a considerable personal achievement for Andy in a way that it wasn't for previous winners.

I know they are at pains to say they are not a one man team but, let's be honest, they are.

Indeed HM. I think the stars aligned once Serbia got taken out.

I am intrigued to see how Murray manages his schedule here on out. Isn't it 3 weeks until Shanghai?

Yes, his schedule will be interesting.

I'm curious about the statement about missing the WTF. Is it a bluff so that the Belgians think clay is not that big an advantage after all? I'm pretty sure that missing the WTF if qualified is one of the few things a player can do to not be in "good standing" with the ATP, which could have bigger consequences than prize money and ranking points. Surely the Belgians know that too.

Will Belgium really choose clay just to limit Andy?

I'd have thought a quicker surface would help Goffin. It's not implausible for him to beat Andy on quick surface but I think he'd have no chance on a slow one like clay.

I think the suggestion about clay was all about limiting Andy to 2 matches, rather than all 3 (3 BO5 matches in 3 days on clay being potentially too draining - remembering Naples last year). In theory, Inglot and Jamie Murray should be able to win the doubles anyway - but given than Dom Inglot has never won a Davis Cup rubber, I'm not sure I'd take the chance with him in such a crucial rubber (whereas we know exactly how Andy handles the pressure).

Its intriguing. Neither Goffin or Darcis are exactly clay court specialists and I think it lessens their chances of beating Andy (which were slim anyway). Yes it potentially weakens GB's doubles but I would have thought, even on clay, the Murrays would be expected to beat any Belgium doubles pair in three easy sets.

Let's be honest, Belgium are huge underdogs in this match so long as Andy is fit, on any surface. On paper this is the easiest of all GB's matches this year.

Agree with Yvonne - Andy should have some difficulty in just pulling out of the WTF to rest for DC. I suspect he would play one match and then find a reason to drop out.

All this shows is that the game is so shallow. If one top player takes it seriously and the others' don't, they win the DC. It happened with Serbia, and last year with Switzerland. Now GB. Spain, to be fair, had some strength in depth but Rafa made it a certainty.

I'm starting to wonder whether the big boys have had a chat and decided they'd all like a DC on the CV and have agreed to take it in turns.

I think it's more a case that the big boys who have already won it no longer have it on the 'to do' list.

Which is why I think Andy might skip it next year and play the WG Play Off in September. Seems a reasonable schedule. It's amazing to think you can retain WG status in such a way

I thought, considering he apparently had a bad back, that Andy played very well this week-end. His backhand was fantastic against Kokkinakkis, while his return of serve was probably the difference between the two doubles teams (though Jamie also played very well indeed - is there a better doubles player around right now? not very many IMO...).

Unto Belgium, and on paper GB are favourites. Belgium's doubles lost to Berlocq/Mayer on Saturday, who are hardly renowned as great doubles players, which suggests that GB should win that one fairly comfortably. Andy of course starts as favourite in his two rubbers, while the battle of the number twos isn't a foregone conclusion either. Inglot's been in decent form recently, so maybe he should get his chance, keep Andy as fresh as possible.

As for the surface, Belgium will probably pick clay. It's just about Goffin's best surface, and certainly weakens the GB doubles team (though whether that will be enough...).

I personally think Andy is right to focus on the DC this year, the stars are unlikely to align in this way for him again, so it could be his only chance.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:It's just about Goffin's best surface, and certainly weakens the GB doubles team

But the same could apply to Murray, now. It's noticeable that he now favours slower courts - yes, preferably hard ones, but I'm not certain that Andy's at any disadvantage against anyone, other than say perhaps Djoko or Berd man on clay

I don't see how it weakens the GB doubles team significantly more than the Belgium one

And it's definitely not Darcis's best surface, otherwise he wouldn't avoid the clay masters like the plague

We know that Murray's back is now playing up - he said it affected him over the weekend & he tried to disguise it.  Murray is coming to the end of a long season and as a top four player that reaches the final stages of grand slam five set tournaments he is likely to have played more and be more worn out than the Belgium players at this stage of the season.  

The most energy sapping court is clay, especially damp clay.  Also switching from one surface to another takes time to acclimatise.

If I were Belgium I would choose clay.  In the first match where Murray plays the Belgium number two or a no-hoper, I suspect they will dampen the clay to turn it into an energy sapping quicksand, and turn the temperature right down (either play outdoors or indoors where they can control the temperature).  If this doesn't work to injure or exhaust Murray I would suggest they give Murray a large bowl of moules-frites.

But we can all agree to disagree. The only thing I would caution against is thinking that Britain have the Davis Cup in the bag.

Andy crushing the Belgium no.2 and the Murrays winning the doubles are virtual certainties on any surface. Clay makes Darcis more vulnerable to Edmund (whose forehand is a real weapon on clay). The only question is whether it gives Goffin more chance versus Murray - probably not in my view. His best chance would be to play on a lightning quick indoor court and hope Andy had an off day.

Uh oh, we arent starting to considering putting *'s on dc wins now are we?

A win, even a losing final is not about Andy, this is for GB. For all the work theyve put in after having to play Turkey to avoid being in the lowest section, and beating Russia from 0-2 down. Its nice for Andy yes, but it would be even bigger for that team.

Think about it, a DC win, a wimbledon crown, Home Olympic gold... if he somehow stole number 1 for a week, that would be a dream career for him and his fans, agaisnt 3 all time greats.

I would play Dom Inglot with Jamie in the doubles, and give Andy a rest, as it will be crucial that he beats Goffin. I know Dom was very nervous in his first DC tie, but he played really well the next time, and he has loads of experience in non-DC big events. I don't think he and Jamie need to be at their best to beat whoever the Belgian pair turns out to be.

I'm intrigued at the idea of giving Kyle his first go at a live rubber (or two) in the final, if it's on clay.

I think this last point only makes sense if Andy plays Goffin on Sunday. If he plays Goffin on Friday, then I think the could play all three.

Looking on odds checker, GB are rated as 75% favourites, Belgium 25% chance to win.

Belgium can't be that bad or they wouldn't have got to the final. Although admittedly they've had an easy route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Davis_Cup_World_Group

Interesting point by BB, it almost feels that way. As I've said before, I'd personally prefer to see the tournament taken a bit more seriously by all top players.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/34309163

Murray considers skipping WTF finals to prepare for clay.

Interesting, I thought he would just semi-fake an injury/cite fatigue or something. Is this a mandatory event?

temporary21 wrote:Uh oh, we arent starting to considering putting *'s on dc wins now are we?

No need to asterisk DC wins because, like Olympic golds, they matter very little when assessing a top player.

In that case why are we making the point about "easy" DC wins? If they dont matter, why does that matter instead?

^Who said DC wins are easy?

I think and Olympic, double slam, Davis Cup winning career carries far more kudos with all them, rather than just the slam

A couple more slams would be nice though

For murray. It would be anOutstanding  acheivement. Understandably it's much less a big thing to the top 3 guys who have higher successes
D

Henman Bill wrote:http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/34309163

Murray considers skipping WTF finals to prepare for clay.

Interesting, I thought he would just semi-fake an injury/cite fatigue or something. Is this a mandatory event?

Indeed, the most mandatory of them all - only way a player can skip it is injury.
Otherwise, as well as loss of points and prize money for the event itself, penalty is a large fine and loss of all bonus earned for the year. I'm not sure if there are other penalties for not being in "good standing" with the ATP.

I still wonder if saying this now was meant to be a bluff to the Belgians i.e. saying put the final on clay and I will be both fresh and prepared. But the Belgians will know the rules. Maybe Murray didn't until now.

From Russell Fuller (BBC) twitter:
‏@russellcfuller
ATP's Chris Kermode on the news that Murray may miss the O2: "All players who qualify, unless injured, are required to compete in the event"

YvonneT wrote:From Russell Fuller (BBC) twitter:
‏@russellcfuller
ATP's Chris Kermode on the news that Murray may miss the O2: "All players who qualify, unless injured, are required to compete in the event"

Maybe that's why he openly stated he had a back injury

What is the relationship between the "International Tennis Federation" which runs the Davis Cup and the Grand Slams and the "Association of Tennis Professionals" which runs the ATP Tour Final as well as the ATP Masters, ATP 500 & ATP 250 series.

Henman Bill wrote:I think this last point only makes sense if Andy plays Goffin on Sunday. If he plays Goffin on Friday, then I think the could  play all three.

Andy can't play Goffin on Friday.
Not unless one of them has become his country's no. 2.

banbrotam wrote:I think and Olympic, double slam, Davis Cup winning career carries far more kudos with all them, rather than just the slam

A couple more slams would be nice though

I agree.

But in Andy's career, the OG and a DC win are just cherries on the multiple-slam cake.

There's something faintly scandalous about all this, but I can't quite put my finger on it. No doubt HE has already starting penning an article, so I'm sure all will be clear before too long.....

Joking aside, perhaps Murray's played a blinder here. I can sort of imagine some behind the scenes pressure being brought to bear on Belgium not to choose clay for the 'good of tennis'.

Having said that, I agree with others that, in pure tennis terms, I'm not sure clay would necessarily improve Belgium's chances and may actually harm them. It's more a case of the adjustment being an injury risk to a tiring Murray and I can't really blame him for worrying about that.

bogbrush wrote:If one top player takes it seriously and the others' don't, they win the DC. It happened with Serbia, and last year with Switzerland. Now GB. Spain, to be fair, had some strength in depth but Rafa made it a certainty.

I'm starting to wonder whether the big boys have had a chat and decided they'd all like a DC on the CV and have agreed to take it in turns.

Sorry but that premise falls apart at the seams when you use Serbia and Switzerland to measure up to GB potentially winning it. Switzerland had two slam-winning players well in the top ten playing singles in their team and Serbia likewise were so much better off for talented singles players than GB were so no comparison. This year (should GB win) it will be a far more surprising and impressive win considering it contains merely Andy Murray and a singles player ranked outside the top 100.

Agreed

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:If one top player takes it seriously and the others' don't, they win the DC. It happened with Serbia, and last year with Switzerland. Now GB. Spain, to be fair, had some strength in depth but Rafa made it a certainty.

I'm starting to wonder whether the big boys have had a chat and decided they'd all like a DC on the CV and have agreed to take it in turns.

Sorry but that premise falls apart at the seams when you use Serbia and Switzerland to measure up to GB potentially winning it. Switzerland had two slam-winning players well in the top ten playing singles in their team and Serbia likewise were so much better off for talented singles players than GB were so no comparison. This year (should GB win) it will be a far more surprising and impressive win considering it contains merely Andy Murray and a singles player ranked outside the top 100.

That's actually my point. A "team" comprised of one top player and some journeymen can win the DC because they don't meet a "team" containing another top player, these other top players having decided the event no longer interests them.

So what is it about my premise that falls apart? It's 100% correct.

I think Craig's point was that your other examples were not like for like. Federer could afford to lose to Monfils last year because he had Stan who was himself better than any of the French team. Similarly, the likes of Tipsy and Troicki have been borderline top 10 players and could take pressure off Novak.

GB is literally a one-man team and Andy has no margin for error at all. He has to win every match if GB are to win.

The overall point is obviously right. The format enables one top class player to effectively win the DC on his own but its a huge effort to do it.

I don't think that's quite fair. You still need a good doubles player alongside him (and Jamie is a more than just "good" of course).

Confirmed Belgium will play the final on clay. Thoughts? For me it makes it harder for Andy to play all three matches, but I would back Jamie and Inglot to get the job done in the doubles, and Edmund has a decent chance against Darcis on clay?

Well now that clay (indoors of course) has been confirmed, it will be interesting to see how things pan out with the WTF in London.

The ATP have always attached huge importance to their World Tour Finals, as reflected by ranking points, advance publicity, and prize money. It has been their flagship event ever since its inception. With Andy talking about missing it to allow extra DC preparation, there could be some form of sanction on the cards. I believe a qualifying player who does not show up could - in theory - even face a Tour ban - though that would seem highly unlikely. Perhaps he has already sounded out ATP officials with a view to reaching an amicable agreement .....?  

I'd give Edmund a good chance against Darcis. Perhaps Ward too (if he can find some form). Not sure Evans is a clay courter though?

The Belgium doubles team doesn't seem much to worry about. Do GB risk Inglot/J Murray in the doubles or risk A Murray burning out and losing his singles to Goffin.

Either way - I rate our second players singles match against Darcis a reasonable chance to pick up a point, if needed.