Davis Cup 2017

Here is the thread for Davis Cup 2017, it's starts this weekend.

All info:

http://www.daviscup.com/en/home.aspx

not many big names.......The format needs rethinking.

Yes...it's lost its glamour a bit.

All the big names have won it. Semis and the final are always good, still!

Only Spain seems serious about DC in round-1.

Never got it, never will. I loved playing tennis over other sports precisely because I stand or fall alone*. The concept of a team format to an individual sport always baffled me. The only reason players show any interest is the national thing, and again in sport I never got that.

Now that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka all have one I'd expect less interest than ever. 


* Related story. When I went for a job interview many years ago at one of the biggest branded American firms I was asked as part of the process what I did outside work. They latched onto the tennis thing and asked why that and not football, cricket etc. I told them exactly why and it was funny to watch their reaction because I wasn't playing the "I'm a team player" thing. I said "Oh, and if you're thinking this means I don't like being part of a team and you'd like some reassurance, well I will play a bit of doubles if I have to".

I got the job - probably the independent attitude was more valuable than the teamy-teamy one anyway, it was a pretty big job, especially for the young guy I was.

The concept is that because football and other sports have a country competition... tennis should.  It's absurd. Tennis isn't a team sport - so they try to make it one. Plus most countries will have at best 2 decent players to choose from - most will have none.  It's crap. It's flawed. It's stupid.

And the second you get a country with two top 10 players, that country are very likely going to win the whole thing.

It's a sign of poor foresight and doing things because you can.  Like snooker... it's aped the tennis flat 128 draw with disastrous consequences, because snooker is not tennis. No-one thought about whether it would work properly, they just thought "Tennis has it. So we will."

I think there is room for team competition in tennis, and Davis Cup is just perfect for that.

The only problem is that the tour is so demanding so not many can take part regularly.

Of course, tennis is an individual sport.

But you can play it with another person in doubles, and that is also very enjoyable.

With "team" events, those athletes get a chance to play for their country and I think it's a privilege.

We Serbs are very patriotic because we haven't had so much immigration i.e. are not bludgeoned with political correctness as a result (though that is only a part of the story because I know French are very patriotic, too, as well as Italians).


I even enjoyed watching some Olympic tennis, and just how those medals meant to Delpo, Fed, Stan, murray....or that girl from Chile!

If it wasn't annual, it might not have dwindled down in importance or even prestige. DC is the rare occasion I sit through and watch doubles, purely because some pairings come out of leftfield and are sometimes two players who seem worlds apart can actually come together and pull off a great performance.

I think the format could certainly use some tweaking. Not a fan of these zonal groups. Some of the lesser nations never get their moment in the sun. Bigger nations playing in small ones could well help inspire infrastructure and the sport in those nations.

I'd like to see like in football the qualifiers some format like that where the cream does rise to the top, but also smaller nations given a small but fair fighting chance.

Djokovic was losing his match 3:6, 0:3 yesterday (to a young Medvedev), when Medvedev started cramping in the 4th and retired.
Medvedev also got injured in the match.

Didn't watch it, but friends told me he played terribly, apologising to the crowd  for it afterwards, citing shoulder problems...

So, his crisis continues...

THE court looked very fast:

It was very fast in Canada too.

I was going to watch Evans -Shapalov...like Shapalov SBH game.

Don't even know the scores, expect Evans ground him?

If Serbia lose their doubles match today, then we'll watch a Djokovic-Khachanov match tomorrow and that will be very interesting as Khachanov lost narrowly in 5 to Troicki yesterday.

Watching a bit of this clip, so much more exciting when it's fast, esp with two SBH-ers playing (compare that to the above clip where two DBH-ers play on  fast courts)

Hand skills in serious test! 

It's great to see young SBH-ers emerging: Shapalov, then the Greek Tsitsipas, so it's not dead.

Hopefully, if conditions start varying towards fast even on smaller tournaments it will mean a lot.

Wow...Impressive player for 17yo...you will see in a few years the kind of tennis those guys will play and then we will revisit the "great era" of Djoko Murray and Nadal. It's going to look even uglier in retrospect.

Damn, that Shapalov is one seriously FUGLY dude. Looks like a horse. I bet the ATP praying he doesn't become the poster boy

It's Davis Cup time again!

QFs:

Belgium-Italy
France-GB
Serbia-Spain
Australia-USA

I saw a clip of Yannick Noah make a fool of himself at the official dinner.
Complete idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1N3OU9aRf4&ebc=ANyPxKqigCrUTOmvhDblqSRZyoQxtR2hqw8CGuvoIfld5TbA0qkoDLs_Ge6CL19WqbNHpFo8MIJ5

Davis Cup. Dan Evans takes centre stage.

Says it all.

I find Evans the most attractive player to watch in GB team.

... wrote:I find Evans the most attractive player to watch in GB team.

His accent is entertaining.

Yeah, he's a decent player. I'm just taking a cheap shot at the DC.

legendkillar wrote:If it wasn't annual, it might not have dwindled down in importance or even prestige. DC is the rare occasion I sit through and watch doubles, purely because some pairings come out of leftfield and are sometimes two players who seem worlds apart can actually come together and pull off a great performance.

I think the format could certainly use some tweaking. Not a fan of these zonal groups. Some of the lesser nations never get their moment in the sun. Bigger nations playing in small ones could well help inspire infrastructure and the sport in those nations.

I'd like to see like in football the qualifiers some format like that where the cream does rise to the top, but also smaller nations given a small but fair fighting chance.

Not a big fan of DC either for the reasons already stated in the thread AND the fact that it is annual. It seems to me that there is always a tension and a struggle for national captains to get their star players to play, who for the most part only seem to want to play when it suits them (ie if it's a requisite for Olympic qualification or if they're looking to complete a resume or if they can use it to prepare on a particular surface etc) - which again just emphasises their lack of commitment to the competition. It feels like a bit of a chore and the players are going through the motions.

I suspect national associations need the DC to keep a degree of control over their players and the resulting funding they receive from their governments.

massive choke job by edmond in the second set tie break
such a disappointment,he did so well to get back into the set

Veejay wrote:massive choke job by edmond in the second set tie break
such a disappointment,he did so well to get back into the set

Pouille is the Daddy for Edmund.

It was Pouille who choked serving with the break at 4:3 and let Edmund back in.

Edmund onky has the FH, Pouille has everything else on top - bettter serve, better BH.

I really enjoy watching his "young" game. He plays with so much heart.

Noah is good entertainment value with his fiery supporting!

and sorry (I can't help it!) British lady fans are so gross and overweight...

Watching the third set of Nole-Ramos, looks that the injury is in the past.

He is 2 sets and a break up so difficult to judge, playing very aggressively the court looks fast.

Yes, I think he'd be back in the game on clay.

I'm full expecting Nole to come back strong. He's gonna be the man to beat on clay. Can't see Nadal beating him if he's anywhere near back to his old self.

looks to me like france will knock team GB out of the davis cup this weekend

well that was crap from the doubles team,several set points in the first set,up a break in the 3rd
shoud have won that match
team GB only able to win a set all weekend...i think that says it all really

Veejay wrote:well that was crap from the doubles team,several set points in the first set,up a break in the 3rd
shoud have won that match
team GB only able to win a set all weekend...i think that says it all really

I enjoyed the doubles match, there was some high quality tennis played, great armosphere, beautiful emotions...it was Davis Cup at its finest.

And I really look forward to the semis:

France-Serbia
Belgium-Australia


On another note, it looks like Davis Cup, the last bastion of tradiotionalism will undergo significant dumbing down surgery: playing the final in a neutral venue, best of 3 for singles, two rather than three days.

I liked what Noah had to say:

"I guess I'm from the old generation. Of course I understand that the economy is central to all the decisions nowadays but sometimes dreamers can think there is more than that.

Noah added that while a neutral location for the final might be "economically very good," a central feature of Davis Cup was "about two countries meeting each other."

I always played in the competition. It was an opportunity to meet other people, and go to different places where they don't have the opportunity to see this kind of tennis.

There were 4,000 kids here [for watching practice] that will never see such players again unless they go to the French Open. This Davis Cup can do that. It seems that I don't read this much about the Davis Cup, I read a lot about privileged people acting like privileged people and it's sad."

And Jamie Murray:

"They need the top players playing because it is not as special as it used to be.
Dave came and made a speech to the player council. We gave our opinions and then the next day the message was, ‘We are going ahead anyway’. Neutral final, that sort of stuff.  I can tell you the players do not want to do that but they are pushing ahead with it.

I think we have worked hard to communicate with the players and the captains."

Well a weekend of Davis Cup that failed to capture any big headlines. I like how the Beeb gave up on coverage after the doubles   I so wish they'd go by the wayside.

The DC is in need of a revamp.

... wrote:

Veejay wrote:well that was crap from the doubles team,several set points in the first set,up a break in the 3rd
shoud have won that match
team GB only able to win a set all weekend...i think that says it all really

I enjoyed the doubles match, there was some high quality tennis played, great armosphere, beautiful emotions...it was Davis Cup at its finest.

And I really look forward to the semis:

France-Serbia
Belgium-Australia


On another note, it looks like Davis Cup, the last bastion of tradiotionalism will undergo significant dumbing down surgery: playing the final in a neutral venue, best of 3 for singles, two rather than three days.

I liked what Noah had to say:

"I guess I'm from the old generation. Of course I understand that the economy is central to all the decisions nowadays but sometimes dreamers can think there is more than that.

Noah added that while a neutral location for the final might be "economically very good," a central feature of Davis Cup was "about two countries meeting each other."

I always played in the competition. It was an opportunity to meet other people, and go to different places where they don't have the opportunity to see this kind of tennis.

There were 4,000 kids here [for watching practice] that will never see such players again unless they go to the French Open. This Davis Cup can do that. It seems that I don't read this much about the Davis Cup, I read a lot about privileged people acting like privileged people and it's sad."

And Jamie Murray:

"They need the top players playing because it is not as special as it used to be.
Dave came and made a speech to the player council. We gave our opinions and then the next day the message was, ‘We are going ahead anyway’. Neutral final, that sort of stuff.  I can tell you the players do not want to do that but they are pushing ahead with it.

I think we have worked hard to communicate with the players and the captains."

totally agree,without big name attractions the tournament loses prestige

I disagree about prestige and big names.

We have a chance to watch big names every week.

Davis Cup is about playing for the country, it brings out the best in players.

I genuinelly enjoyed Murray not playing, though he is entertaining when he plays doubles.

Anyway, I love the old format.

Modernisation in sport/tennis is exclusively governed by money and we know that money ruins all it touches.

what keeps sport alive is interest,the more interest in the sport the bigger the sport becomes 
a tournament that doesnt generate much interest loses prestige especially against bigger tournament like grand slams
lets face it,the bigger names in the sport dont take the davis cup as seriously or place it in the same league as a grand slam
seeing that its the world cup of tennis it should be on par prestige wise and should technically generate as  much or even more interest
the reason it doesnt is because the bigger names in the game dont treat it as such,so the general public follow suit and therefor it loses prestige because it doesnt generate as much interest

I am with NITB that the USP of the DC is the country participation rather than the big names, however the fact it's annual has more than stripped the gloss off the event. The tennis season packs a lot of events in it with the DC trying to find it's place in there.

I think they should introduce a group qualifying format, so smaller nations have a fighting chance and also host it every 2 years. What I don't enjoy is the monopoly some of the nations have on the WG.

ok let me ask you this,what would tennis tournaments/grand slams be like without its a-list celebrity players
answer: the davis cup
as little performance wise/quality and as little interest
if these major tennis stars started treating the davis cup like a major consistently and started talking about how much value and prestige the title has it would greatly increase interest,with that would come more endorsements and air time etc
at the moment the davis cup doesnt get the same air time as a major and its the world cup of tennis
look at the kind of  air time the world cup in other sports gets,ie football
its purely based in interest in the sport 
to gain interest you need celebrity sports stars competing for their country and taking it really seriously
im not disputing that the DC is about country participation im arguing that the big names should be more passionate and eager to play for their country
because tennis is mostly an individual sport,the high profile players tend to put their solo career first way before playing for their country
theres no way they would withdraw from a major as easily as they would from playing the davis cup
have you ever heard anyone say " i won the DC 10 times" like they do with majors and other titles? 
its not a title players  seem to care enough  to win more then once
the general public can sense that hence the reason why many tennis fans or viewers have little to no interest in it
now that team GB have been knocked out,there will be virtually no coverage of the DC here simply cause there isnt enough interest
if england got knocked out of the world cup,the coverage would continue the same way it would if andy murray got knocked out a wimbledon because the interest is still there 
i can bet you that ratings were way lower over the weekend with murray not playing

Vee, 
It's like world cup in football or olympic games...you'll support your country no matter who plays for it.

... wrote:Vee, 
It's like world cup in football or olympic games...you'll support your country no matter who plays for it.

not necessarily ,not everyone is patriotic especially if the sport is a political symbol 
in south africa the africans aways supported the opposing teams to national teams because many sports were symbols of segregation 
but  youre  missing the point,you have to get people interested first before you can get them to support something 
very few people will support something that they arent interested in
as i said previously,i bet the rating for the DC this weekend would have been much much higher if murray was playing 
major sporting events like the olympics or world cup attract viewers who dont necessarily follow the sport 
the DC is unlikely to even attract the casual wimbledon viewer simply because its not given as much prestige by the high profile players who treat it more as a liability

I think if you love the sport, you'll need no extra "interest" generated.
Problem is, tennis has never been a popular sport in the uk, it's miles behind football, cricket, rugby etc.

I've always loved watching DC, even when Serbia didn't have a team.

Playing for your country can't compare to other competition.

It's unique and special. It never fails to deliver.

Now some clever greedy little manager saw a gao in the market and wants to make some money...that's all it is, not a lot to do with tennis.

... wrote:I think if you love the sport, you'll need no extra "interest" generated.
Problem is, tennis has never been a popular sport in the uk, it's miles behind football, cricket, rugby etc.

I've always loved watching DC, even when Serbia didn't have a team.

Playing for your country can't compare to other competition.

It's unique and special. It never fails to deliver.

Now some clever greedy little manager saw a gao in the market and wants to make some money...that's all it is, not a lot to do with tennis.

ok so why doesnt the dc seem to generate the same interest among tennis lovers as lets say wimbledon?
there are many different types of sports viewers,some are die hard fans like you,some follow with a reasonable amount of interest and other just follow the big matches/events,how much you view the sport doesnt automatically reflect the love you have for the sport
theres clearly a class system sports viewers too as tennis is considered to be an elitist sport 

thats just an opinion that you may share cause if that were a fact why do so many high profile players withdraw from competing in the DC far easier then they ever would withdrawing from grand slam? 
what about all the players and athletes in other sports  that didnt want to go to rio last year and refused to compete for their country?
ask any player what they would rather have,a gold medal for their country at the olympics or a grand slam title  for themselves?

The only problem DC poses for top players is a very busy schedule.

That's why they don't commit every year.

Tennis has become a globally very popular sport and countries like China are now competing to grab a slot in the calendar...too much $$$ temptation for ATP bosses to cram as many tournaments while the sun shines.

But it has not always been like that and I am pretty sure it will resume its old levels of popularity once Federer retires.

So, leave DC alone, I say. 

It has allways been evenly/steadily popular and as I said - never failed to deliver.

... wrote:The only problem DC poses for top players is a very busy schedule.

That's why they don't commit every year.

Tennis has become a globally very popular sport and countries like China are now competing to grab a slot in the calendar...too much $$$ temptation for ATP bosses to cram as many tournaments while the sun shines.

But it has not always been like that and I am pretty sure it will resume its old levels of popularity once Federer retires.

So, leave DC alone, I say. 

It has allways been evenly/steadily popular and as I said - never failed to deliver.

i think that it failed to deliver for the u.k audiences this past weekend lol
but youre right a busy schedule also plays a major part in why the top players withdraw from playing DC far easier then they would another tournament 
perhaps money also plays a big part,if there was prize money to be won or appearance fees to be gained players would prioritise it better

Veejay wrote:ok let me ask you this,what would tennis tournaments/grand slams be like without its a-list celebrity players
answer: the davis cup
as little performance wise/quality and as little interest
if these major tennis stars started treating the davis cup like a major consistently and started talking about how much value and prestige the title has it would greatly increase interest,with that would come more endorsements and air time etc
at the moment the davis cup doesnt get the same air time as a major and its the world cup of tennis
look at the kind of  air time the world cup in other sports gets,ie football
its purely based in interest in the sport 
to gain interest you need celebrity sports stars competing for their country and taking it really seriously
im not disputing that the DC is about country participation im arguing that the big names should be more passionate and eager to play for their country
because tennis is mostly an individual sport,the high profile players tend to put their solo career first way before playing for their country
theres no way they would withdraw from a major as easily as they would from playing the davis cup
have you ever heard anyone say " i won the DC 10 times" like they do with majors and other titles? 
its not a title players  seem to care enough  to win more then once
the general public can sense that hence the reason why many tennis fans or viewers have little to no interest in it
now that team GB have been knocked out,there will be virtually no coverage of the DC here simply cause there isnt enough interest
if england got knocked out of the world cup,the coverage would continue the same way it would if andy murray got knocked out a wimbledon because the interest is still there 
i can bet you that ratings were way lower over the weekend with murray not playing

Well no. Because take the World Cup in football. Would that be any less of a spectacle without big names? I am sure people would still watch the event because of the prestige. A World Cup is still unique on it's own without a Brazil or Germany. Take the Ryder Cup in golf. Woods hasn't been near it in a playing capacity or has Poulter who seemingly was a big attraction on the European side and yet that competition hasn't diminished in interest at all.

The DC suffers from the format and sheer frequency.

I am with NITB. When you are playing for your country in any event, there is a different kind of pride and invoking of the nationalist spirit in any sport follower. More so for me with smaller nations who sit in the shadows of bigger ones. Look at Iceland as the Euro's last year. The fans drew more attention than the team!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQFqlgpf_w
im sure this really invoked a different kind of pride and nationalist spirit in england football fans 
i know loads of people who cannot stand the likes of john terry and the england football team..bunch of over rated over paid under achieving arrogant fuckers who people feel do nothing but bring shame and embarrassment to england every time they step on the field 
you even hear the commentators with garry liniker talk about how embarrassing they are 
so no no everyone feels the same nationalistic pride and spirit that iceland did at the euro last year
i still disagree with you and NITB and agree with jamie murray 
imagine if the biggest names in football refused to play the world cup for their country and instead focused solely on their careers wth their clubs 
do you think that the world cup would still be considered the same prestigious event?
i mean imagine if ronaldo,rooney,messi,neymar ect all decided to skip the world cup at the same time the same way the big names in tennis withdraw from playing DC when their schedule gets too tough to cope with?
can you imagine the backlash and outrage? 
how do you think that looks to the viewer?
if the biggest names in the game dont consider it to be the pinnacle of their sport why should the viewers?
its the fact that they do consider it to be the greatest title they could ever win that makes the event generate such interest
DC is not considered to be the pinnacle of tennis achievement and a lot of that is the fault of the big names not treating it as such

if the DC suffers from the format of sheer frequency why dont other tournaments or tennis as a whole suffer from it?
there are tennis tournaments almost every week of the year
its because people tune in to see the big names compete ,they want to see blockbuster matches,they want to see the players they support win titles,they want to see records being broken etc
big names draws interest that is a fact,otherwise why do some of them get paid such huge appearance fees just to pitch up at a tournament?
to increase interest and boost the prestige of the event

But would for example Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar skip the WC if it was scheduled like the DC? They probably would. Scheduling to any international event requiring national participation is key. If the WC and Olympics were held every year, the prestige would wear off. Look at the WC in Qatar. The mention of it taking place in winter already has ruffled some feathers. As I stated. Scheduling is key.

The prestige of the DC is let down by the format and scheduling. Other tournaments you speak of, the eventual winner is not determined by the name of the player, but rather the name of the nation. For example the winner of a Slam will always be singular whereas the winner of the DC will be a collective.

The lure of big names are additional support to the event, they are simply not the event. Take the WC. Every game sells out. People flock to be part of the event, not to watch one particular player.

The DC comes across an inconvenience to a players schedule. Almost like it is crammed to crown an eventual winner at the end of the year. To me it is why some of the top the players treat it with utter contempt. Hence why in my opinion the whole format and scheduling needs to be looked at.

i dont think that scheduling is a big a part of the problem as you may think it is
if the DC was considered as prestigious an event as a grand slam with as much prize money and possible ranking points to somehow collect,i am 100% certain that all the players would make a concerted effort to prioritise their year schedule around it and make sure that they pitch up to compete 
its for the above reasons and because they dont consider it to be a massive priority so they put their solo careers come first
its the same with the football players and the world cup,it doesnt have much to do with scheduling but rather the prestige of the event,its the greatest title they could ever win so they want to compete 
if they didnt consider it to be the greatest title they could win,they simply wouldnt care much to play the event regardless of scheduling
even if the world cup or olympics were held every year,if it was still considered to be the greatest title an athlete would win,it would have no impact on the prestige of the event
we have sport all year round,the premier league and wimbledon/grand slams are played every year,has that ever taken away from the prestige of winning the titles simply because its held every year?
winning the world cup could make a football player so much greater i.e maradonna but winning the DC doesnt even make an average player in the team a household name 
of course the big names in tennis or sport as a whole are not the be all and end all of a sporting event,you need the entire draw to create the event,but the big names draws the interest
i agree that the DC is considered an inconvenience  or liability to tennis players,but i can assure you that if it was considered to be as great as winning a major and/or there was as much prize money or ranking points to collect,the players would have a complete different outlook towards the event
its a roundabout argument,the event needs the big names in the sport to take it seriously to increase and boost the events prestige,but at the same time the event needs to be considered prestigious  by the players for them to take it very seriously 
this is why murray said that the event needs bigger names in the sport competing

Right so the players and managers of clubs alike have never complained about the scheduling of the WC. The odd gripe of players coming back knackered, but nothing massively. Yet when Qatar, the scheduling became a big focal point of the event (despite being held every 4 years) which shows that scheduling plays a bigger part of any international event.

Point me to an international sporting event (when I say international sport, I mean in which the participants are part of a team defined by the countries name rather than the athlete/s) that is played over 9 months on an annual basis aside from the DC!?

I think you are missing the point completely about sporting events and their prestige. Majors/Slams/Championships whatever you want to call them, their prestige (USP) will go on far longer as legacy than that of their respective participants. 

Format and scheduling are key for survival of any event. Look no further than the Ryder Cup. USA would hammer the UK all the time from the 50's through to the early 80's. It got to a point when even some of the American players would pull out of the event more because of the format became a formality. Hence then Jack Nicklaus wrote to the R&A requesting something be done to restore prestige to the event and hence Team UK became Team Europe and re-invigorated the event.  

For me the DC isn't suffering because of the big names not playing. It's suffering because nothing is stopping the elite from being moved on and nothing is stimulating the lower ranked nations to be anywhere near competitive. The very fact that nations in the World Group essentially get 2 bites at the cherry to stay in the WG makes it a mockery. Means that a Murray or Djokovic could say screw playing DC in February, I can play in September and still keep us in the WG. What message does that send to lower ranked nations where the DC serves as the potential best chance of any success in tennis? In relation to the DC you'll never convince me that the absence of big names is the biggest factor in why fans don't watch.

ok so let me ask you this,why did murray say ""They need the top players playing because it is not as special as it used to be."
rather then saying the DC should be played every 4 years or the scheduling should be bettered?
why didnt murray say this instead?:
For me the DC isn't suffering because of the big names not playing. It's suffering because nothing is stopping the elite from being moved on and nothing is stimulating the lower ranked nations to be anywhere near competitive. The very fact that nations in the World Group essentially get 2 bites at the cherry to stay in the WG makes it a mockery. Means that a Murray or Djokovic could say screw playing DC in February, I can play in September and still keep us in the WG. What message does that send to lower ranked nations where the DC serves as the potential best chance of any success in tennis? In relation to the DC you'll never convince me that the absence of big names is the biggest factor in why fans don't watch.

legendkillar
Posts : 1386
Join date : 2012-10-02

 

if murray really thought that scheduling was the DC's biggest problem,dont you think he would have said so?
he said what he did because he knows the players and that even if the DC was scheduled better they still wouldnt show the same interest in playing the event as they would a major or master 1000 event
murray is a DC player who has won it,i think that his opinion hold some weight so  id rather go with his opinion over yours LK sorry

obviously you cant have 2 major events at the same time

no one ever disputed the fact that its countries vs countries  in the DC that makes the event special but whats the points of watching your country when the star athletes from your country playing the sport cant be bothered to represent your country because their solo career are their main priority 
if they dont even take it seriously,why should you consider it to be that special?
all time greats are what makes sport prestigious,their achievements,their records,they add to the history of the game and the event just as the future stars of the sport will contribute their bit.without them and what they achieved we would just have a bunch of average mediocre results by lower ranked athletes who amateurs could possibly even challenge
people who follow sport want to see someone do something they could never even contemplate of doing or achieving.

what would wimbledon be like if federer decided to never play again,when all the viewers who follow the sport know for  a fact that he could beat the rest of the field to win the title,but instead chose not to play because he just didnt think it was worth his while.dont you think that would have a knock on effect on the prestige of the event?
im not saying that it will erase  the history or  completely take the prestige away but what if the rest of the best players in the game started following suit and decided to only pitch up and the other 3 majors and not wimbledon.what kind of impact do you think that would have on wimbledon?
its just a hypothetical question but thats pretty much whats going on with the DC which is why jamie murray said what he did
in my opinion scheduling has little to do with the interest or lack there of in the DC because its not the viewers whose schedule is being disrupted 
its the big names that draws the interest not better scheduling 
i think that even if the DC was scheduled better the top players would still show little interest in it and would still withdraw far easier from playing the DC then they ever would a major because i dont believe that they consider it as prestigious a title as other tournaments in the sport

Veejay wrote:ok so let me ask you this,why did murray say ""They need the top players playing because it is not as special as it used to be."
rather then saying the DC should be played every 4 years or the scheduling should be bettered?
why didnt murray say this instead?:
For me the DC isn't suffering because of the big names not playing. It's suffering because nothing is stopping the elite from being moved on and nothing is stimulating the lower ranked nations to be anywhere near competitive. The very fact that nations in the World Group essentially get 2 bites at the cherry to stay in the WG makes it a mockery. Means that a Murray or Djokovic could say screw playing DC in February, I can play in September and still keep us in the WG. What message does that send to lower ranked nations where the DC serves as the potential best chance of any success in tennis? In relation to the DC you'll never convince me that the absence of big names is the biggest factor in why fans don't watch.

legendkillar
Posts : 1386
Join date : 2012-10-02

 

if murray really thought that scheduling was the DC's biggest problem,dont you think he would have said so?
he said what he did because he knows the players and that even if the DC was scheduled better they still wouldnt show the same interest in playing the event as they would a major or master 1000 event
murray is a DC player who has won it,i think that his opinion hold some weight so  id rather go with his opinion over yours LK sorry

obviously you cant have 2 major events at the same time

no one ever disputed the fact that its countries vs countries  in the DC that makes the event special but whats the points of watching your country when the star athletes from your country playing the sport cant be bothered to represent your country because their solo career are their main priority 
if they dont even take it seriously,why should you consider it to be that special?
all time greats are what makes sport prestigious,their achievements,their records,they add to the history of the game and the event just as the future stars of the sport will contribute their bit.without them and what they achieved we would just have a bunch of average mediocre results by lower ranked athletes who amateurs could possibly even challenge
people who follow sport want to see someone do something they could never even contemplate of doing or achieving.

what would wimbledon be like if federer decided to never play again,when all the viewers who follow the sport know for  a fact that he could beat the rest of the field to win the title,but instead chose not to play because he just didnt think it was worth his while.dont you think that would have a knock on effect on the prestige of the event?
im not saying that it will erase  the history or  completely take the prestige away but what if the rest of the best players in the game started following suit and decided to only pitch up and the other 3 majors and not wimbledon.what kind of impact do you think that would have on wimbledon?
its just a hypothetical question but thats pretty much whats going on with the DC which is why jamie murray said what he did
in my opinion scheduling has little to do with the interest or lack there of in the DC because its not the viewers whose schedule is being disrupted 
its the big names that draws the interest not better scheduling 
i think that even if the DC was scheduled better the top players would still show little interest in it and would still withdraw far easier from playing the DC then they ever would a major because i dont believe that they consider it as prestigious a title as other tournaments in the sport

Murray may have won a DC, but doesn't qualify him as an expert over what the fans want to see! Hell it doesn't make me one, though I know what puts me off the DC and it isn't lack of big names for sure. He identifies top players skipping it, but not the reasons why. Which are 2 different things. Why are the big names skipping the event? If he was informative and qualified he would be able to provide an insight.

Wimbeldon was long Wimbeldon before Federer was a tadpole in his Daddy's stream and it will still be Wimbledon when Federer is long in the ground. Again I don't think you are understanding what prestige within a tournament represents. If I said to 100 people "What's the first thing you think of in relation to Wimbledon?" I doubt Federer would even poll more than 20% of responses. I would hazard a guess that responses like "Centre Court, Grass and Strawberries" would come out higher. Tradition and heritage plays big parts of the prestige of a tournament.

However, as this is DC I will keep it within context of the DC. I have no doubt with how the DC is scheduled, it is in a way to cater for players schedules. For that reason, because they are accepting playing second fiddle to Slams, Masters and even 250,500 events shows that it is willing to consider itself low in priority. The format is barmy. If they took 2 weeks out of the schedule to play the damn thing would be something! The fact the event follows immediately after 3 of the Slams isn't great either given the 'top' players are needing a rest or even to let mental battle scars heal.

i dont think you need to be an expect to figure out what fans want to see 
when you watch wimbledon,where does the majority of the air time go?
centre court and court 1 or court no 20?
what do you think would happen to the ratings if the BBC focused on what happened on court 20 rather then on centre court? 
the majority of viewers want to see the top players not world no 122 vs world no 150 
i still maintain that if murray thought that it was the scheduling of the event that was the root of problem he would have said so especially if he is going to give his opinion on the tournament
he thinks that the event needs more f the biggets names playing and i completely agree with him,they are what draw the interest

prestige is mostly opinion based,many people say that wimbledon is the greatest tennis tournament but is that a fact? its just an opinion that shared by the majority just like federer is widely regarded to be the greatest player ever 
of course wimbledon was there before federer and it will be there long after,no one ever disputed that.obviously the tournament is much bigger then federer but i was asking a hypothetical question,what would the tournament be like if none of the biggest names in the game wanted to take part
you cannot deny that if that happened in our current times,it would have a major impact on the event and if it continued to happen it would effect the tournaments prestige and legacy
its the players who create the history,their epic matches,their achievements and records it all adds to the prestige and legacy of the event 
if i  asked someone about wimbledon the response i would usually get is mccenroe,borg,sampras,edberg,bekker,agassi,federer,djokovic,nadal,williams,graff,navratilova, hell even murray...if all youre getting is strawberries and cream,pims and the band...well that pretty much says it all 

You have the red button Vee which means you can watch any of the courts  so essentially even though the schedulers at Wimbledon try to put the players on the show courts based on viewing tastes means that the Beeb cover their bases nicely. You ever watched Eurosport coverage of the US Open? They never feature the show courts. What do you think that says?

You are solely looking at the action rather than the cause. All Murray stated was the tournament needed the bigger players, but wasn't giving any indication as to why the big players were not playing. If they are stating they need rest after a Slam, what is that telling you? Tells me the DC schedule doesn't fit their schedule.

If a tournament happened to miss out big players. Let's say that Murray, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer said to the Wimbledon organisers "Nah don't want to play this year. Won it enough times" Let's say on that excuse alone, would totally hurt the tournament. Because it's the cause rather than the action.

Going back to the prestige element. Not everyone that flocks to Wimbledon goes because they are going to remember players names. They go for the experience. I was in awe of Centre Court when I went. Players come and go, but Centre Court will always remain. That's a defining symbolic characteristic of the event as Augusta is to the Masters.

Now going back to the DC to which we are pistols at dawn over, you cannot tell me that a tournament that takes nearly a year to run is going to get it's participants out of bed every time is it? Aside from national pride, tell me where the prestige in that tournament is? Like I said earlier about the format. It's wrong. Let's say I am Murray. This year they drew Canada first up. I have no doubt Murray knew Raonic would be in no shape to participate. However, on top of that Edmund and Evans are playing well. It was a tactical decision to pull out as he would look at GB's second string and be confident they are better than Canada's second string.

When GB won in 2015, a path opened up like never before hence Murray jumped at it. Similarly to Switzerland the year before when Federer committed himself. Players look at draws and know if they are realistically in with a shout. If not, they know they can defer to a play off later in the year and see if bigger nations get taken out and favourable draw opens up the following year.

That's why I don't like the format, gives the players too much control. You couldn't do that at a Slam.

yes i know how tv's and remotes works these days,but youre grasping at straws here
are you honestly going to try and convince me that everyone is going to completely and consistently ignore BBC1 and BBC2 and push the red button instead to see whats going on on court 20? 
you think all the millions of fans the likes of federer and nadal have,they are all going to switch over from watching their idol and instead watch someone they probably never even heard of before?
theres a reason why those matches are on the red button,rather then BBC1 and BCC2


all i am doing is agreeing with murray,the tournament needs bigger names 
theres nothing wrong with looking solely at the action because the cause simply doesnt wash
there is no real excuse from not playing DC apart from being injured.either you want to compete for your country or you dont- youd rather focus on your solo career.its as simple as that
you shouldnt have to beg or plead anyone who is eligible to play,to compete for their country.they should consider it an honour  
i said this before and i will say it again,if there was prize money and/or appearance fees or ranking points or winning the DC cup was widely regarded as the pinnacle or tennis,the players would pitch up no matter how badly the event was scheduled

i dont agree with the tactical point you made either,of course there is a possibility players look at it that way or that they do that but to me that proves the following:
1 they dont really take the tournament that seriously,cause if they did and they really wanted to win the title,they wouldnt rely on their team mates to get them through
thats a lot of assuming cause anything can happen and they could end up being knocked out that weekend exactly how team GB were this past weekend.without murray they simply stood no chance 
so if youre willing to risk being knocked out by not even playing,what does that say about the attitude you have to the event and how much you really want to win?
2 it also proves that the DC isnt murrays priority,his solo career is.if the DC was his priority he would want to play not resort to tactics to avoid playing  
3 it also proves that the better players are needed to help countries progress cause the chances are that the lower ranked players simply wont be enough to secure a victory

just look at what youre saying,players look at the draw first..when has anyone ever done that at a major..lets first look at  at the draw and see if we have a shot...lol
imagine what would happen to grand slams if the players started doing that,first look to see what their chances are before deciding to play or not,no wonder the DC is the mess it is and murray said what he did!!
players usually just pitch up at tournaments and compete cause theres prize money involved,they have to earn a living,besides any professional has to believe that theres a chance that they could win or at least believe that they could capitalise on their chances in a match otherwise they never will
you enter a tournament and you try your best,you dont look at the draw and then chicken out 
once again its also a lot of assuming,cause even federer should know after beating nadal at AO that anything can happen,any player would be stupid blow and opportunity just assuming something
nothing in tennis or life for that matter is 100% guaranteed.thats why we have upsets in sport
if you were passionate about playing for your country you would pitch up and still compete even if the chances are youre going to lose 
if you really wanted to do something like play for your country,you would do it,you would make it your priority,so for those who would simply find any excuse not to speaks volumes - they simply dont want to do it
if someone really wants to do something,they will get up off their ass and do it or make it happen,if they dont want to do something,they will use every excuse available to them to avoid doing 
playing for your country isnt always just about winning or losing,like you said before there should be a certain pride,its also about representing your country and being a good ambassador 


you also make it sound like the DC takes up all year...
what is it,like 4 weekends a year?
sorry but thats hardly an inconvenience and the top player would usually only need to play 2 matches at the most
who knows,you may not even make it to the 2nd,3rd  or 4th weekend (which is why you should play if you want to win the title) so technically youd only really be committing yourself to 1 weekend cause its not 100% guaranteed that youll make it to the second weekend or the 3rd or 4th etc
playing the DC for your country isnt really even asking that much if you consider all the above 
the reason why the top players dont take it that seriously and resort to tactics and looking at the draw and then chickening out like you said is because i bet they see titles this way
1 wimbledon
2 U.S open,RG AO
3 world tour finals
4 masters 1000 series event 
5 olympic gold then silver then bronze 
5 DC
thats right..DC right at the bottom
in fact i wouldnt be surprised if many considered it below a 500 or 250 event cause at least those tournaments have points to collect and prize money
as i said previously prestige is mostly opinion based,people will still be talking about 2008 wimbledon final as one of the greatest matches ever played in 30-50 years time
the DC could do with some epic matches like that is contested between the all time greats of the game that will get people talking about the event and create something that will go down in history and remembered for many years to come