Davis Cup 2016 Round One

First topic message reminder :

As first matches get underway on Friday 4th with draw ceremonies (i.e. final nominations and order of play) on Thursday, I thought I'd kick off this thread.

Fixtures for round one are:
Great Britain vs. Japan
Serbia vs. Kazakhstan
Italy vs. Switzerland
Poland vs. Argentina
France vs. Canada
Germany vs. Czech Republic
Australia vs. United States
Belgium vs. Croatia

GB v Japan is the only tie with a clash of top 10 players. France v Canada promised much, but with Raonic and Nestor out should be straightforward for the French. Kyrgios is out of Aussie team with a virus and Hewitt comes out of perhaps the shortest retirement in history to replace him.

Look listen. The problem is that we've had the issue of double standards for people's favourite players a lot over the years. Nothing's definite. But put simply cc simply isn't buying that explanation, that's its just by coincidence come up now gb are on top. There's npthing that can be done to change that

Calder106 wrote:One small tweak they could make without changing the format significantly would be to make the Number 2 players play the third singles and the number 1's the last one. Would be interesting to have seen for instance Kyle Edmund playing the Belgian Number 2 in the final last year or Dan Evans playing the Japan number 2 yesterday. A chance for them to close the tie out and get the kudos for doing so.

I'm almost certain they line it up the way they do to increase the chances of the n°1's facing off. The feeling is that the battle of the n°1's is the "marquee" match, so you want it to be a live rubber more often than not.

As for the format, I don't think I'd change it. The Friday singles give a great chance for the David vs Goliath upset when the n°2 topples the opposite n°1, like Ward vs Isner, or when Neytsenkov (Kaz) beat Kyrgios last year. Talk of a one-man team are silly IMO, without Jamie playing some great tennis GB would not have won the DC last year - he was the best player on court in the QF and SF doubles IMO. And obviously Ward beating Isner too.

I think they could find better spots in the calendar for it to be sure. Nothing wrong with the first round timing, but QFs right after Wimbledon, SFs right after the US Open, and final right after the WTFs (with the negative impact on the latter seen the last two years)? Surely that could be arranged better? And indeed, maybe holding it less regularly would attract more of the top players, albeit we saw Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Nishikori, Cilic, the top four Frenchmen, etc. competing this week-end. Only really the Swiss duo missing, and Feds is injured in any case.

They could I suppose make the wg an 8 team thing so theres only 3 in the year...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

I'm almost certain they line it up the way they do to increase the chances of the n°1's facing off. The feeling is that the battle of the n°1's is the "marquee" match, so you want it to be a live rubber more often than not.

Yes we all want to see a clash of two top ten players but what is the point of watching a top ten player go through the motions of beating a player ranked 200, 300, 600 or even un ranked? Keep the rubber where the top players from each country clash but then have the second, third and perhaps fourth ranked players clash? Or as I suggested earlier 3 singles seeded in this way and two doubles. The matches would be more competitive and more interesting for spectators and the competition would also be more of a team event with every player nominated contributing to the outcome. The winners would be the whole team.

That's what DC is about HE. Guys in the hundreds trying to take down higher ranked guys with he weight of a stadiums cheers behind them. Its why dc is such a test of a big players bottle.

It also gives lower ranked guys the chance to play a big gun in a big atmosphere, its one of its main draws.

Assigning them by country rank is exploitable, what about guys coming back from injury?
The only real test is for all of them to play eachother.

I'd change the frequency of the event. Yearly seems too much for me.

temporary21 wrote:That's what DC is about HE. Guys in the hundreds trying to take down higher ranked guys with he weight of a stadiums cheers behind them. Its why dc is such a test of a big players bottle.

It also gives lower ranked guys the chance to play a big gun in a big atmosphere, its one of its main draws.

Assigning them by country rank is exploitable, what about guys coming back from injury?
The only real test is for all of them to play eachother.

Ranking is generally used for seeding. If there is a better way it should be used in all events. Anyway ranking is used in DC already. There will still be opportunities for the lower ranked players to do a bit of giant killing but the matches will be closer. eg no 5 v no 30, no 80, no 150 v no 250 etc. Three or four singles matches are enough. Do we really need to see the number 5 play the 250? This way both the highest and lowest ranked players in a team can play their part, the spectators get to watch more competitive matches and the winners will be a team rather than the top ranked player. No player will exhaust themselves trying to do it all either. That must be a good thing too.

Yes we do need to see number 250 take on number 5. Its Davis cup. Its the countries top two players each playing the other.

I don't get it. Why are we trying to bork teams with one player a lot better than the others? That's just how it is. If you REALLY think that a "one person team" has it easy, take a look at that Murray Nishikori match, one guy taking all 3 points is something only ironmen can typically do.

Im with cc, I think that's got a lot more to do with who it is, than what it is.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I'd change the frequency of the event. Yearly seems too much for me.

It is clearly too much for some of the players. For example Switzerland played in the world group this weekend but the players responsible for them being there were not present.

The two singles player format gives the smaller nations a chance to compete. Imagine how Japan would be if they had to take their top 5 guys! How far down you would have to go...

Not all countries can easily even field 5 singles players either.

Had Murray been beaten by Kei, it would have been Dan Evans v Tito for the tie, which would have been ultra competitive and tense.

I don't see this problem with loads of "dead" matches. If a team relies on one player, then the lower ranked guy has a chance to sap his energy and keep him out there. Theres always something at play

temporary21 wrote:Yes we do need to see number 250 take on number 5. Its Davis cup. Its the countries top two players each playing the other.

I don't get it. Why are we trying to bork teams with one player a lot better than the others? That's just how it is. If you REALLY think that a "one person team" has it easy, take a look at that Murray Nishikori match, one guy taking all 3 points is something only ironmen can typically do.

Im with cc, I think that's got a lot more to do with who it is, than what it is.

I agree get the two best players from each country to play each other. But why not then just get the two second best players to play each other and then the third best? Why do we need the best players to play the lower ranked players?

For example Murray/Nishikori and Djokovic/Kukushkin were competitive but did it really add much to the competition to have Murray play Daniel or Djokovic play Nedovyesov? Why not have for example Murray/Nishokori, Evans/Daniel and another singles between the third ranked player from each country with either a singles between the fourth ranked players and one doubles match or perhaps two doubles matches (with different players in each) I could indicate the same for Serbia/Kazakhstan but I think I've made the general idea clear?

It's nothing to do with whether a one man team has it easy. A team event is not meant to be about one man it's meant to be about a team. In a team competition the whole team should play a part. All team members share the victory and therefore should share the work.

If you mean the gb team. Then that IS about the team. If you follow them you'll remember th coming back from 2-0 down to Russia. James ward beating isner. All the doubles heroics and all the support they give eachother.

The format is perfectly fair, you need 3 points and the main guy can only play 2 singles. If you have nobody else it's nearly impossible for one guy to do it even with doubles. Gb have a bunch of good doubles guys

temporary21 wrote:If you mean the gb team.  Then that IS about the team.  If you follow them you'll remember th coming back from 2-0 down to Russia. James ward beating isner.  All the doubles heroics and all the support they give eachother.

The format is perfectly fair, you need 3 points and the main guy can only play 2 singles. If you have nobody else it's nearly impossible for one guy to do it even with doubles. Gb have a bunch of good doubles guys

No I'm not just talking about the GB team... If the competition is best of 5 to be a true team competition why let a "main guy" take two or help take three of the points? Why not make the rules reflect the fact that it's meant to be a team competition? My suggestion would do just that. There would be a chance for all team members to grab a point and for the spectators there would be more close matches. The winners would really be a winning team.

Because you have a team presumably with a player much better than all the rest of the other team. That's therefote the deserved advantage you get. Else you might get say the Swiss with federer and wawrinka, lose as a team to say Israel because 3 through 5 sucked. That's ludicrous to me. You also kill the David versus Goliath matches which are one of the main draws of dc